planetf1.com

funkymonkey wrote:Answer will remain the same. If in that race you are not competing, you have no right to impede leaders. And this is perfect example. We can think of one or two instances where a genuinely quick driver got lapped and that too after lot of things went wrong.

No need to get rid of blue flags for anomalies. Dont want to loose time? Dont be in a position to get lapped. As simple as that.

Ok, fair enough, we have different views. However, The bit in bold does sound a bit silly to me. All drivers including the one who is last are competitors! If you are not competing, then you couldn't possibly get in the way of the leaders as you wouldn't be on the track.

It would also be like saying Jules Bianchi wasn't competing in Monaco 2014 as he was lapped (very nearly twice I think). But he was in 9th and fighting for the only points Manor Marussia ever got! And even Hulkenberg who was as high as 5th got lapped. Does that mean he shouldn't be able to fight with his competitors if it affected the leaders? 5th isn't much further down than 1st really is it?

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

funkymonkey wrote:Answer will remain the same. If in that race you are not competing, you have no right to impede leaders. And this is perfect example. We can think of one or two instances where a genuinely quick driver got lapped and that too after lot of things went wrong.

No need to get rid of blue flags for anomalies. Dont want to loose time? Dont be in a position to get lapped. As simple as that.

Ok, fair enough, we have different views. However, The bit in bold does sound a bit silly to me. All drivers including the one who is last are competitors! If you are not competing, then you couldn't possibly get in the way of the leaders as you wouldn't be on the track.

It would also be like saying Jules Bianchi wasn't competing in Monaco 2014 as he was lapped (very nearly twice I think). But he was in 9th and fighting for the only points Manor Marussia ever got! And even Hulkenberg who was as high as 5th got lapped. Does that mean he shouldn't be able to fight with his competitors if it affected the leaders? 5th isn't much further down than 1st really is it?

The example you provided is a rare occurrence.
Only 9 out of 21 races last season had 1 or more cars that finished in the points lapped, and that was mostly the 10th or the 9th placed car.

But lets just give the backmarkers the same relevance as the leading pack and analyze some data:

1. In 21 races last season, a total of 30 cars that finished in the points were also 1 lap down on the leader, and therefore could have been affected by Blue Flags.

2. Now compare that with leading driver who, in 21 races had to lap a total of 209 backmarkers and tell me which is more likely to skew up the race results unfairly, Blue Flag rules, or no Blue Flags at all, 30 or 209 events?

The odds are almost 7 to 1, and we`re not even taking into consideration that in the majority of the races, not only the outright leader, but even drivers fighting for positions as low as the 6th or 8th place have to lap 1 or 2 backmarkers (placed 20th - 15th, fighting for virtually nothing at all) at some point. Do we really need to potentially affect the top 7 or top 8 positions, just to make sure the leaders wont interfere on the fight for the 9th or 10th position? (30 positions in 21 races, thats what it comes down to in average, the 10th and 9th place).

Any calls against the Blue Flags seem pretty illogical to me, especially this current season considering how heavily and badly this season's cars seem to be affected by the slipstream of the car in front.

Fairly minor consideration perhaps, but think blue flags are also important to ensure that teams do not blatantly try and impact race results if one of their own drivers happens to be down a lap for whatever reason. No doubt teams would consider this towards the end of the season if titles are on the line.

Migen wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

funkymonkey wrote:Answer will remain the same. If in that race you are not competing, you have no right to impede leaders. And this is perfect example. We can think of one or two instances where a genuinely quick driver got lapped and that too after lot of things went wrong.

No need to get rid of blue flags for anomalies. Dont want to loose time? Dont be in a position to get lapped. As simple as that.

Ok, fair enough, we have different views. However, The bit in bold does sound a bit silly to me. All drivers including the one who is last are competitors! If you are not competing, then you couldn't possibly get in the way of the leaders as you wouldn't be on the track.

It would also be like saying Jules Bianchi wasn't competing in Monaco 2014 as he was lapped (very nearly twice I think). But he was in 9th and fighting for the only points Manor Marussia ever got! And even Hulkenberg who was as high as 5th got lapped. Does that mean he shouldn't be able to fight with his competitors if it affected the leaders? 5th isn't much further down than 1st really is it?

The example you provided is a rare occurrence.
Only 9 out of 21 races last season had 1 or more cars that finished in the points lapped, and that was mostly the 10th or the 9th placed car.

But lets just give the backmarkers the same relevance as the leading pack and analyze some data:

1. In 21 races last season, a total of 30 cars that finished in the points were also 1 lap down on the leader, and therefore could have been affected by Blue Flags.

2. Now compare that with leading driver who, in 21 races had to lap a total of 209 backmarkers and tell me which is more likely to skew up the race results unfairly, Blue Flag rules, or no Blue Flags at all, 30 or 209 events?

The odds are almost 7 to 1, and we`re not even taking into consideration that in the majority of the races, not only the outright leader, but even drivers fighting for positions as low as the 6th or 8th place have to lap 1 or 2 backmarkers (placed 20th - 15th, fighting for virtually nothing at all) at some point. Do we really need to potentially affect the top 7 or top 8 positions, just to make sure the leaders wont interfere on the fight for the 9th or 10th position? (30 positions in 21 races, thats what it comes down to in average, the 10th and 9th place).

Any calls against the Blue Flags seem pretty illogical to me, especially this current season considering how heavily and badly this season's cars seem to be affected by the slipstream of the car in front.

You reasoned well, and you also put some work in too. The point 2. is particularly telling.

I just do not see the way that the proponents of "no blue flags" can uphold their position by pursuing this line of a fair and square racing. To start with, the onus of the racing is on the winning it, and not on the backmarkers ending in a point or two. Intentionally sacrificing the former one for the sake of the later one would be a ridiculous move towards "it is not important to win but to participate" format.

It remains rather the line that Blinky supported, i.e. that it all is but a circus for the fun of watching and entertaining the crowds, so the question to argue would be "Which one that would entertain more, which one that would attract bigger viewership and generate more revenues to the F1?". And there, you open Pandora's box... UFC or American Wrestling.. or something there in between.
Well, it would ultimate depend on the audience and its preferences, so the gods of F1 may ponder over that one (which, generally speaking, they do anyway) and keep experimenting. And we are the consumers that have the final word - to buy the product or not.

Pole2Win wrote:

Prema wrote:Wasn't Ross Brawn.

I hate when laziness gets the better of me.

I don't know Derek enough to understand why it would be surprising for him to say that, so my only guess is that he's still salty about the Senna veto in 1986...

Regardless, Ross Brawn was one of the proponents of the idea, so my point is still valid, though in a different way of course.

Indeed it wasn't Ross Brawn, but Derek Warwick. I was a bit surprised he shared my views about fair racing, seeing he is a current driver-steward, with full knowledge of current rules. Those rules are unfair towards lapped drivers in my view, and Derek Warwick illustrates how they came and come about.

I understand the point that underlies the modern rules, as does Warwick. But unlike myself, he has first-hand experience of being a front-runner and a lapped driver in the good old days when the leaders had to race everybody. I find his rationale to be much fairer to everybody.

If a driver about to be lapped breaks the rules in holding up a leading driver, he should be punished. Just as I felt at the time that drivers like Senna, who offered a backmarker the chance of getting out of his way or have an accident, should have been punished.

I fail to see the logic in blue flagging a driver out of the way of the leaders, when those leaders already had the advantage of starting further up the grid. They are given that position on the basis of having shown their superior speed. They should use that speed to sportingly pass a backmarker.

Finally, even those not in the points are classified, and their classification at the end of the season is of paramount importance for their budgets. I think that's the only allowance I would make to the economics behind some of the arguments. The olympic ideal is old-fashioned, I know. But to me, every driver in the race, is in the race.

Fiki wrote:

Pole2Win wrote:

Prema wrote:Wasn't Ross Brawn.

I hate when laziness gets the better of me.

I don't know Derek enough to understand why it would be surprising for him to say that, so my only guess is that he's still salty about the Senna veto in 1986...

Regardless, Ross Brawn was one of the proponents of the idea, so my point is still valid, though in a different way of course.

Indeed it wasn't Ross Brawn, but Derek Warwick. I was a bit surprised he shared my views about fair racing, seeing he is a current driver-steward, with full knowledge of current rules. Those rules are unfair towards lapped drivers in my view, and Derek Warwick illustrates how they came and come about.

I understand the point that underlies the modern rules, as does Warwick. But unlike myself, he has first-hand experience of being a front-runner and a lapped driver in the good old days when the leaders had to race everybody. I find his rationale to be much fairer to everybody.

If a driver about to be lapped breaks the rules in holding up a leading driver, he should be punished. Just as I felt at the time that drivers like Senna, who offered a backmarker the chance of getting out of his way or have an accident, should have been punished.

I fail to see the logic in blue flagging a driver out of the way of the leaders, when those leaders already had the advantage of starting further up the grid. They are given that position on the basis of having shown their superior speed. They should use that speed to sportingly pass a backmarker.

Finally, even those not in the points are classified, and their classification at the end of the season is of paramount importance for their budgets. I think that's the only allowance I would make to the economics behind some of the arguments. The olympic ideal is old-fashioned, I know. But to me, every driver in the race, is in the race.

I am afraid I don't get it. You just said that you were surprised to see Derek sharing your views in this issue. This is what he said, you quoted him:

"Take away blue flags, take away all these penalties".
"Let's get back to harder racing and let people work out how to overtake when coming to lap a slow car."

Now, compare that with your statement there up, underlined. Just the opposite! He said, take away all these penalties, get back to harder racing... and you say, punish them, if they break the rules in holding leaders back! What rules exactly? The blue flag rules? What "holding" of a leading driver would that be? Is that what you think that Derek meant with "harder racing", or what would it be anyway (that to be different than any other "holding" such as a lead driver defending his position, for example)?

Prema wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Pole2Win wrote:

Prema wrote:Wasn't Ross Brawn.

I hate when laziness gets the better of me.

I don't know Derek enough to understand why it would be surprising for him to say that, so my only guess is that he's still salty about the Senna veto in 1986...

Regardless, Ross Brawn was one of the proponents of the idea, so my point is still valid, though in a different way of course.

Indeed it wasn't Ross Brawn, but Derek Warwick. I was a bit surprised he shared my views about fair racing, seeing he is a current driver-steward, with full knowledge of current rules. Those rules are unfair towards lapped drivers in my view, and Derek Warwick illustrates how they came and come about.

I understand the point that underlies the modern rules, as does Warwick. But unlike myself, he has first-hand experience of being a front-runner and a lapped driver in the good old days when the leaders had to race everybody. I find his rationale to be much fairer to everybody.

If a driver about to be lapped breaks the rules in holding up a leading driver, he should be punished. Just as I felt at the time that drivers like Senna, who offered a backmarker the chance of getting out of his way or have an accident, should have been punished.

I fail to see the logic in blue flagging a driver out of the way of the leaders, when those leaders already had the advantage of starting further up the grid. They are given that position on the basis of having shown their superior speed. They should use that speed to sportingly pass a backmarker.

Finally, even those not in the points are classified, and their classification at the end of the season is of paramount importance for their budgets. I think that's the only allowance I would make to the economics behind some of the arguments. The olympic ideal is old-fashioned, I know. But to me, every driver in the race, is in the race.

I am afraid I don't get it. You just said that you were surprised to see Derek sharing your views in this issue. This is what he said, you quoted him:

"Take away blue flags, take away all these penalties".
"Let's get back to harder racing and let people work out how to overtake when coming to lap a slow car."

Now, compare that with your statement there up, underlined. Just the opposite! He said, take away all these penalties, get back to harder racing... and you say, punish them, if they break the rules in holding leaders back! What rules exactly? The blue flag rules? What "holding" of a leading driver would that be? Is that what you think that Derek meant with "harder racing", or what would it be anyway (that to be different than any other "holding" such as a lead driver defending his position, for example)?

Sorry to have kept you waiting, Prema. The surprise was in seeing him agree that the blue flag rules should go back to what they meant in the eighties, yet accepting to be a driver-steward, having to judge driver behaviour according to today's rules. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised, since Derek has clearly driven in an era when racing etiquette wasn't a dirty term yet. I do admit I would have to discuss with him why he would want to do away with all the penalties, but perhaps that's also where proper racing etiquette ties in. But, as I have pointed out on earlier occasions, there is no document laying down what racing etiquette is supposed to mean. Hence the "need" for "clarification" whenever some driver acts as if eveybody else should jump in a ditch when he appears.

But the main point is that Derek Warwick agrees that a lapped driver isn't out of the race. Leading a race means nothing, as long as you haven't crossed the finishing line. There may still be pay-outs for positions at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 race distance, but that is another matter entirely.

Fiki wrote:

Prema wrote:

Fiki wrote: Indeed it wasn't Ross Brawn, but Derek Warwick. I was a bit surprised he shared my views about fair racing, seeing he is a current driver-steward, with full knowledge of current rules. Those rules are unfair towards lapped drivers in my view, and Derek Warwick illustrates how they came and come about.

I understand the point that underlies the modern rules, as does Warwick. But unlike myself, he has first-hand experience of being a front-runner and a lapped driver in the good old days when the leaders had to race everybody. I find his rationale to be much fairer to everybody.

If a driver about to be lapped breaks the rules in holding up a leading driver, he should be punished. Just as I felt at the time that drivers like Senna, who offered a backmarker the chance of getting out of his way or have an accident, should have been punished.

I fail to see the logic in blue flagging a driver out of the way of the leaders, when those leaders already had the advantage of starting further up the grid. They are given that position on the basis of having shown their superior speed. They should use that speed to sportingly pass a backmarker.

Finally, even those not in the points are classified, and their classification at the end of the season is of paramount importance for their budgets. I think that's the only allowance I would make to the economics behind some of the arguments. The olympic ideal is old-fashioned, I know. But to me, every driver in the race, is in the race.

I am afraid I don't get it. You just said that you were surprised to see Derek sharing your views in this issue. This is what he said, you quoted him:

"Take away blue flags, take away all these penalties".
"Let's get back to harder racing and let people work out how to overtake when coming to lap a slow car."

Now, compare that with your statement there up, underlined. Just the opposite! He said, take away all these penalties, get back to harder racing... and you say, punish them, if they break the rules in holding leaders back! What rules exactly? The blue flag rules? What "holding" of a leading driver would that be? Is that what you think that Derek meant with "harder racing", or what would it be anyway (that to be different than any other "holding" such as a lead driver defending his position, for example)?

Sorry to have kept you waiting, Prema. The surprise was in seeing him agree that the blue flag rules should go back to what they meant in the eighties, yet accepting to be a driver-steward, having to judge driver behaviour according to today's rules. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised, since Derek has clearly driven in an era when racing etiquette wasn't a dirty term yet. I do admit I would have to discuss with him why he would want to do away with all the penalties, but perhaps that's also where proper racing etiquette ties in. But, as I have pointed out on earlier occasions, there is no document laying down what racing etiquette is supposed to mean. Hence the "need" for "clarification" whenever some driver acts as if eveybody else should jump in a ditch when he appears.

But the main point is that Derek Warwick agrees that a lapped driver isn't out of the race. Leading a race means nothing, as long as you haven't crossed the finishing line. There may still be pay-outs for positions at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 race distance, but that is another matter entirely.

Well, personally I wouldn't be placing much weight in one Derek advocating his personal view on the issue. If anything, you being "pleasantly surprised" about it speaks for itself.

I do not think that the blue flags rule meant that the lapped driver was out of the race, out of his race. But simply out of the racing for the position against the lead driver. And this one is the fact that seems to be ignored all the time, but it is the most important moment for the existence of this rule. Both you and Derek are coming from that point of view that the lead driver ought to fight for and "win" his position against the lapped driver that is up to 1.5 min behind him as the matter of fact. That is and absurd. Such may be having its justification only for the entertainment purposes, if wanted to argue that line. But not within the context of the actual racing itself for the positions on the track (something that "racing" each other is supposed to mean).

Prema wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Prema wrote:

Fiki wrote: Indeed it wasn't Ross Brawn, but Derek Warwick. I was a bit surprised he shared my views about fair racing, seeing he is a current driver-steward, with full knowledge of current rules. Those rules are unfair towards lapped drivers in my view, and Derek Warwick illustrates how they came and come about.

I understand the point that underlies the modern rules, as does Warwick. But unlike myself, he has first-hand experience of being a front-runner and a lapped driver in the good old days when the leaders had to race everybody. I find his rationale to be much fairer to everybody.

If a driver about to be lapped breaks the rules in holding up a leading driver, he should be punished. Just as I felt at the time that drivers like Senna, who offered a backmarker the chance of getting out of his way or have an accident, should have been punished.

I fail to see the logic in blue flagging a driver out of the way of the leaders, when those leaders already had the advantage of starting further up the grid. They are given that position on the basis of having shown their superior speed. They should use that speed to sportingly pass a backmarker.

Finally, even those not in the points are classified, and their classification at the end of the season is of paramount importance for their budgets. I think that's the only allowance I would make to the economics behind some of the arguments. The olympic ideal is old-fashioned, I know. But to me, every driver in the race, is in the race.

I am afraid I don't get it. You just said that you were surprised to see Derek sharing your views in this issue. This is what he said, you quoted him:

"Take away blue flags, take away all these penalties".
"Let's get back to harder racing and let people work out how to overtake when coming to lap a slow car."

Now, compare that with your statement there up, underlined. Just the opposite! He said, take away all these penalties, get back to harder racing... and you say, punish them, if they break the rules in holding leaders back! What rules exactly? The blue flag rules? What "holding" of a leading driver would that be? Is that what you think that Derek meant with "harder racing", or what would it be anyway (that to be different than any other "holding" such as a lead driver defending his position, for example)?

Sorry to have kept you waiting, Prema. The surprise was in seeing him agree that the blue flag rules should go back to what they meant in the eighties, yet accepting to be a driver-steward, having to judge driver behaviour according to today's rules. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised, since Derek has clearly driven in an era when racing etiquette wasn't a dirty term yet. I do admit I would have to discuss with him why he would want to do away with all the penalties, but perhaps that's also where proper racing etiquette ties in. But, as I have pointed out on earlier occasions, there is no document laying down what racing etiquette is supposed to mean. Hence the "need" for "clarification" whenever some driver acts as if eveybody else should jump in a ditch when he appears.

But the main point is that Derek Warwick agrees that a lapped driver isn't out of the race. Leading a race means nothing, as long as you haven't crossed the finishing line. There may still be pay-outs for positions at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 race distance, but that is another matter entirely.

Well, personally I wouldn't be placing much weight in one Derek advocating his personal view on the issue. If anything, you being "pleasantly surprised" about it speaks for itself.

I do not think that the blue flags rule meant that the lapped driver was out of the race, out of his race. But simply out of the racing for the position against the lead driver. And this one is the fact that seems to be ignored all the time, but it is the most important moment for the existence of this rule. Both you and Derek are coming from that point of view that the lead driver ought to fight for and "win" his position against the lapped driver that is up to 1.5 min behind him as the matter of fact. That is and absurd. Such may be having its justification only for the entertainment purposes, if wanted to argue that line. But not within the context of the actual racing itself for the positions on the track (something that "racing" each other is supposed to mean).

That it is absurd is something we will have to agree to disagree on. I can only point out that the race is only run when the cars cross the finish line. Everything in between should be run according the rules, without special privilege for any driver.

Get rid of Blue Flags altogether to improve racing.

Make the leaders work their way around back markers and see who the real pilots are.

Well, this race, Ricciardo who was 3rd was extremely close to getting lapped! If Verstappen had been in the race too and they had been fighting with each other the whole time, there is little doubt that they will have been lapped towards the end. But as they are fighting for the podium, should they still have to affect their own races to let the leaders through? Just after we were discussing that it wasn't common for drivers in the points to be lapped, the driver in 3rd nearly did. I still think there may come a time where blue flags will completely ruin somebody's championship results in the final race of a season if they are as strict as they sometimes have been.

Fiki wrote: That it is absurd is something we will have to agree to disagree on. I can only point out that the race is only run when the cars cross the finish line. Everything in between should be run according the rules, without special privilege for any driver.

But what that "according the rules" is supposed to be in the case of a lead driver lapping the back car? You are saying it as if that is to be something self-evident, while that is the entire question that to be answered here. Is it according to the rules of racing where 2 drivers race each other for the position in the race? It can't be, since they do not fight for it.

Why a lead driver would be considered here as a "privileged" one if he does not have to fight for that position of his in the race that he already has and that will remain just the same position after he "fought" it "back" again?

Prema wrote:

Fiki wrote: That it is absurd is something we will have to agree to disagree on. I can only point out that the race is only run when the cars cross the finish line. Everything in between should be run according the rules, without special privilege for any driver.

But what that "according the rules" is supposed to be in the case of a lead driver lapping the back car? You are saying it as if that is to be something self-evident, while that is the entire question that to be answered here. Is it according to the rules of racing where 2 drivers race each other for the position in the race? It can't be, since they do not fight for it.

Why a lead driver would be considered here as a "privileged" one if he does not have to fight for that position of his in the race that he already has and that will remain just the same position after he "fought" it "back" again?

The lead driver passes a car according to the rules that govern passing; like leaving room to a car alongside to complete the corner. What is so mysterious about that?

The current blue flag rules are different to what they were in the 1980s. Warwick is correct in stating that the rules were/are changed for the leaders. I saw no reason to hand the leaders an additional advantage, and still don't see one now. If a quicker car can't pass a slower car that behaves according the rules, then what is it doing in the lead?

Twice over the last two races, we've seen Vettel falter when lapping Massa. Not Massa's fault, just a chink in Vettel's armour. So be it. I don't want him to go as far as Senna did to deal with backmarkers, but he can work on it, surely?

This is yet another race where I feel sorry for both the leaders and the back markers. Grosjean shouldn't have done what he did, but still, he was fighting for position, in the same way the leaders would. I know he should have seen he had the blue flag warning, but as he was fighting with another driver, it is so frustraiting having to risk possibly loosing your position if you let the leaders through. But at the same time, this makes the leaders suffer terribly. Hamilton was all of a sudden under threat by Verstappen because of Grosjean. The thing that would really irritate me is that if there was a driver that is about to get lapped is in a car that can barely ever get points and is up there fighting for them. This could often make a bigger difference to that team than than the top drivers loosing a few seconds. But enough of the time, the leaders suffer more. I just don't know a way around this.

You can tell that it isn't the required distance for blue flags that start effecting you cars performance. Bottas wasn't quick anyway, but his pace was affected badly by hulkenberg. This made me think that they possibly are not bringing out blue flags early enough, like many drivers complain about. But then should Hulkenberg cost himself several seconds? No. But all this doesn't seem right for the lapped and lead drivers.

I still can only think of one thing that just wouldn't happen. At certain stages of ever track. make a certain part of the circuit that must only be used by lapped drivers and when they are shown blue flags. Enough for them to go on and still fight for their own race but not mess up the leaders too much. This won't happen, and would be way to expensive to do, but I can't think of any way of it being fair towards both.

Feel a bit sorry for Grosjean tbh.

After the race, Formula 1 race director Charlie Whiting told reporters, “Romain just completely forgot the golden rule of blue flags and that is if you are in a battle you’ve got to forget about your own battle and move over.”

“I’ve drilled that into them many times, and I think he completely forgot about it. He was so intent on his battle with Sirotkin that he just – the light panels were flashing with his race number on them – and Lewis was much much faster.”

https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/09/17 ... -grosjean/

While I understand that they don't want the back markers to impact the race at the front too much, I think the principle that they should simply forget about their own battle to be totally wrong. Moving out of the way is one thing, but having to sacrifice your own race just because someone else is fortunate to be sitting in a quicker car is not acceptable IMO. They really are treated like "the monkeys at the back" sometimes and I think that's unfair.

Why should backmarkers be allowed to determine the outcome of a race?

Red Bull have two teams, some teams have junior drivers in other teams, some drivers may have preference to whom they might want to do well, if it was the other way around Grosjean himself would be complaining.

pokerman wrote:Why should backmarkers be allowed to determine the outcome of a race?

Red Bull have two teams, some teams have junior drivers in other teams, some drivers may have preference to whom they might want to do well, if it was the other way around Grosjean himself would be complaining.

I'm sure he would. The back markers are there to race just as much as the front runners. I see no harm in them being a factor if we have a situation like we did in Singapore.

So let me get this straight! What is being debated is getting rid of the blue flag rules, and let the pace of the race be determined by the SLOWEST cars on the track, and this is going to somehow IMPROVE the racing. Does the term "Trulli Train" mean anything to anyone here?

Zoue wrote:Feel a bit sorry for Grosjean tbh.

After the race, Formula 1 race director Charlie Whiting told reporters, “Romain just completely forgot the golden rule of blue flags and that is if you are in a battle you’ve got to forget about your own battle and move over.”

“I’ve drilled that into them many times, and I think he completely forgot about it. He was so intent on his battle with Sirotkin that he just – the light panels were flashing with his race number on them – and Lewis was much much faster.”

https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/09/17 ... -grosjean/

While I understand that they don't want the back markers to impact the race at the front too much, I think the principle that they should simply forget about their own battle to be totally wrong. Moving out of the way is one thing, but having to sacrifice your own race just because someone else is fortunate to be sitting in a quicker car is not acceptable IMO. They really are treated like "the monkeys at the back" sometimes and I think that's unfair.

They're not being asked to "sacrifice their race". They're being asked to get the hell out of the way when the leaders come through. Once the leaders are past, they can resume fighting (having both had to move out of the way for a moment). It's not about losing anything relative to the guy you're fighting. It's about not interfering with the race up front.

You want backmarkers to have substantial influence on the actual race win?

Longnose wrote:So let me get this straight! What is being debated is getting rid of the blue flag rules, and let the pace of the race be determined by the SLOWEST cars on the track, and this is going to somehow IMPROVE the racing. Does the term "Trulli Train" mean anything to anyone here?

Have you not seen how easily the top cars come through the field this year?

Im not a fan of blue flags, i honstly believe the leaders should have to work their way through the traffic - same for everyone. Normal overtaking rules apply, ref not moving more than once and returning to the racing line, DRS would be available so no issues from me with getting rid of blue flags.

What i did find disapointing was Bottas complaining about the Hulk, he was nowhere near enough to even suggest he should be blue flagged, and Perez complaining to Charlie was disgraceful .

As a retired SCCA corner worker, I favor using blue flags as pretty much an advisory flag. SCCA rules do not specify any required action if you are given a blue flag. It is simply an advisory that someone faster is coming up behind you.

There may need to be some kind of method for telling a driver about to be lapped that he should not impede the leader(s). Still it should be a separate notification from the advisory that you need to check your mirrors.

yodasarmpit wrote:Im not a fan of blue flags, i honstly believe the leaders should have to work their way through the traffic - same for everyone. Normal overtaking rules apply, ref not moving more than once and returning to the racing line, DRS would be available so no issues from me with getting rid of blue flags.

What i did find disapointing was Bottas complaining about the Hulk, he was nowhere near enough to even suggest he should be blue flagged, and Perez complaining to Charlie was disgraceful .

This isn't the old days. The aerodynamic reality of modern F1 would make this a total disaster. They didn't come up with blue flags randomly. It was a response to the reality of the situation. There are circuits like Monaco where the leaders could very easily get stuck behind MUCH slower cars like this with absolutely no recourse.

I don't think the idea of getting rid of blue flags is feasible. I think guys fighting for 12th place just need to pay attention and respond to the blue flags. It's not about disrespecting them or their race, it's just about respecting the race up front.

yodasarmpit wrote:Im not a fan of blue flags, i honstly believe the leaders should have to work their way through the traffic - same for everyone. Normal overtaking rules apply, ref not moving more than once and returning to the racing line, DRS would be available so no issues from me with getting rid of blue flags.

What i did find disapointing was Bottas complaining about the Hulk, he was nowhere near enough to even suggest he should be blue flagged, and Perez complaining to Charlie was disgraceful .

I think if you have a formula with junior teams you have to have blue flags.

mikeyg123 wrote:

yodasarmpit wrote:Im not a fan of blue flags, i honstly believe the leaders should have to work their way through the traffic - same for everyone. Normal overtaking rules apply, ref not moving more than once and returning to the racing line, DRS would be available so no issues from me with getting rid of blue flags.

What i did find disapointing was Bottas complaining about the Hulk, he was nowhere near enough to even suggest he should be blue flagged, and Perez complaining to Charlie was disgraceful .

I think if you have a formula with junior teams you have to have blue flags.

Was about to bring this up myself. I wouldn't rule out the top teams using their B teams as blockers and deliberately putting them 1 lap down for a helping hand around the pitstops. Undercuts are much easier if you have someone readily placed to block your rival who hasn't pitted yet. The B teams would decide the races and it would all be a massive farce.

Aren't some of us forgettting the presence of the cursed DRS, which makes it even easier for a faster car to pass? We have to undergo the use of this abberation because some want more overtakes. Well then, let the leaders overtake. If they can't overtake a car that is at least a whole lap per race slower, they don't deserve to be leading.

Edited to add something: Remember when Max Verstappen followed on the tail of the leader benefitting from blue flags in Monaco? I'm not sure of the year, but such oppotunism is also not the aim of rule book. Nobody broke any rules, but the result was detrimental to someone racing another driver just the same.

Fiki wrote:Aren't some of us forgettting the presence of the cursed DRS, which makes it even easier for a faster car to pass? We have to undergo the use of this abberation because some want more overtakes. Well then, let the leaders overtake. If they can't overtake a car that is at least a whole lap per race slower, they don't deserve to be leading.

Edited to add something: Remember when Max Verstappen followed on the tail of the leader benefitting from blue flags in Monaco? I'm not sure of the year, but such oppotunism is also not the aim of rule book. Nobody broke any rules, but the result was detrimental to someone racing another driver just the same.

This is what sometimes happens though. Did Ricciardo, and Verstappen not deserve to be leading Spain 2016 on laps 23 - 26? They couldn't get past Haryanto. He was about to be lapped lapped but actually a little faster than them. But still, the dirty air will have effected them. On lap 26, he went onto the main straight and slowed down and even after that, Ricciardo only got just a bit closer until he lifted off even more. Then Ricciardo, Verstappen and Vettel got through costing Haryanto well over 3 seconds who actually had good pace then as he had pitted. If blue flags didn't get used, I think they could have been stuck behind him for nearly 10 laps. But they probably will have decided to box if it went on. That Manor was fast on the straights.

Bottas didn't have great pace that day. Hamilton clearly managed to lap those drivers much more easily. But it still won't have helped that Hulkenberg was on much fresher tyres then Bottas. I think this was partially the reason together with his lack of pace today and that the Mercedes seems to struggle in dirty air much further away from the car in front than other teams do.

I always used to favour blue flags but my opinion has shifted 180 degrees over the past decade or so. Give the cars better wing mirrors (I'm surprised they haven't fitted a TV screen to the wheel with rear facing cameras yet) and allow drivers to battle it out.

Lapped drivers should not be allowed to intentionally hold the faster cars up by driving a blocking line, but they should be able to keep going at racing pace and not simply move over. Passing back markers should be part of top F1 drivers abilities. It would make things far more exciting.

WHoff78 wrote:Fairly minor consideration perhaps, but think blue flags are also important to ensure that teams do not blatantly try and impact race results if one of their own drivers happens to be down a lap for whatever reason. No doubt teams would consider this towards the end of the season if titles are on the line.

This and I believe this happens sometimes in Indycars were they don't have blue flags, some teams have 4 drivers.

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

yodasarmpit wrote:Im not a fan of blue flags, i honstly believe the leaders should have to work their way through the traffic - same for everyone. Normal overtaking rules apply, ref not moving more than once and returning to the racing line, DRS would be available so no issues from me with getting rid of blue flags.

What i did find disapointing was Bottas complaining about the Hulk, he was nowhere near enough to even suggest he should be blue flagged, and Perez complaining to Charlie was disgraceful .

I think if you have a formula with junior teams you have to have blue flags.

Was about to bring this up myself. I wouldn't rule out the top teams using their B teams as blockers and deliberately putting them 1 lap down for a helping hand around the pitstops. Undercuts are much easier if you have someone readily placed to block your rival who hasn't pitted yet. The B teams would decide the races and it would all be a massive farce.

Been a while since this thread was used.

It does seem like both Perez and Kvyat did interfere more than we realised though: https://www.racefans.net/2020/08/17/per ... lue-flags/

"Perez and Kvyat were found to have ignored blue flags from turns six to 15 on one lap, and on to turn one of the subsequent lap, during Sunday’s race."

I think it is more unfair if they are clearly in a fight with other drivers right at that moment (especially if the leader is comfortably leading), but Perez especially had more than enough time to react while barely effecting his own race before the final sector. But other occasions, I think the blue flags have been worse. Thought I may as well bump the thread in case any want to discuss them again.

Ah - during the race the only replay they showed was an onboard of Perez along the main straight, with Hamilton breezing by at the end of it. My initial reaction was, what on earth was so wrong that a penalty is deemed worthy? Now it makes more sense.
It's a rather difficult one to police as both leading drivers and lapped drivers may, as you mention, have their own races going on which are critical. Whilst priority should be towards the leading drivers, it does seem unfair that a lapped driver should immediately jump out of the way.
The lapped driver should allow the leading driver by as soon as is reasonable. The trouble is, though, that turbulent air can disrupt a following car that is as up to as much as 2 seconds (maybe more?) behind. One shouldn't expect a lapped driver to give up 2 seconds, yet it seems that the flags are waved awfully early on.

The blue flags are shown absurdly early. No way should anyone be expected to give up three seconds to let someone through. I'm pro having blue flags but they should only be shown when a leader is 1 second behind the car in front and then the guy being lapped should get at least half a lap to find a place to move out of the way.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:32 am

The blue flags are shown absurdly early. No way should anyone be expected to give up three seconds to let someone through. I'm pro having blue flags but they should only be shown when a leader is 1 second behind the car in front and then the guy being lapped should get at least half a lap to find a place to move out of the way.

As per the article it is 1.2 secs, so not that bad actually

Alienturnedhuman wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:37 am

I was somewhat surprised when I saw the tweets by people criticising the blue flag penalty based on the replay. Anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the F1 rules knows that the rules allow for 3 corners to yield the position so the video footage of Hamilton passing clearly didn't show the holding up part of the infraction. Yes, it is poor direction from the broadcaster, but the moment a driver gets past is obviously not the holding up part of the offence, and that was the part we needed to see.

I always thought that it must be a hell of a job to be a race broadcaster, they must be very switched on on the action

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:59 am

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:32 am

The blue flags are shown absurdly early. No way should anyone be expected to give up three seconds to let someone through. I'm pro having blue flags but they should only be shown when a leader is 1 second behind the car in front and then the guy being lapped should get at least half a lap to find a place to move out of the way.

As per the article it is 1.2 secs, so not that bad actually

If 1.2 seconds is accurate then I'm out of wack saying it should be a second. I think the leaders need to get much closer than they are now. Or perhaps start waving the flags at the same time as now but give the backmarkers a lap to move over.

TheGiantHogweed wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:25 am

Been a while since this thread was used.

It does seem like both Perez and Kvyat did interfere more than we realised though: https://www.racefans.net/2020/08/17/per ... lue-flags/

"Perez and Kvyat were found to have ignored blue flags from turns six to 15 on one lap, and on to turn one of the subsequent lap, during Sunday’s race."

I think it is more unfair if they are clearly in a fight with other drivers right at that moment (especially if the leader is comfortably leading), but Perez especially had more than enough time to react while barely effecting his own race before the final sector. But other occasions, I think the blue flags have been worse. Thought I may as well bump the thread in case any want to discuss them again.

I wonder who Kvyat didn't move over for?

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:32 am

The blue flags are shown absurdly early. No way should anyone be expected to give up three seconds to let someone through. I'm pro having blue flags but they should only be shown when a leader is 1 second behind the car in front and then the guy being lapped should get at least half a lap to find a place to move out of the way.

Yeah like if I'm a AlphaTauri driver I will hold up a Merc for half a lap whilst the Red Bull I will let by straight away.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:07 pm

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:59 am

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:32 am

The blue flags are shown absurdly early. No way should anyone be expected to give up three seconds to let someone through. I'm pro having blue flags but they should only be shown when a leader is 1 second behind the car in front and then the guy being lapped should get at least half a lap to find a place to move out of the way.

As per the article it is 1.2 secs, so not that bad actually

If 1.2 seconds is accurate then I'm out of wack saying it should be a second. I think the leaders need to get much closer than they are now. Or perhaps start waving the flags at the same time as now but give the backmarkers a lap to move over.

You were very close in your prediction!! I agree it should be a bit closer, but I guess it also needs to be long enough so that the car has enough time to find the correct spot to let the leader through. Maybe 1.2 is empirically the perfect time frame, very random number otherwise (could be a typo in the article!).