It is currently Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:36 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34309
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So you didn't see the picture of Vettel's car with none of the tyres in contact with the track?
I saw the footage, and read the stewards' report. They saw images from other cameras and decided there was no clear distinction possible between touching the white line or not. Vettel was given the benefit of the doubt, which I accepted then and now.

So that would be a no you didn't see the picture that showed Vettel's car to be completely off the track, the link to the image was posted on here at the time of the debate.

I think the reason they gave back then is that some part of the wheel itself was above the line (not the rubber, but parts of the wheel), so they argued that they cannot conclusively say that it was outside the track. Although it is not contact with the tarmac, that's what they argued to my understanding. Which is b*llshit, Vettel should have been penalised in my eyes.

Out of interest, do you have that pic Poker?

Indeed and the rules as written, which some often like to produce, say that the car must be in contact with the track, that's a physical requirement, here is the picture.

https://i.imgur.com/WAyPrwK.png

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Last edited by pokerman on Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8286
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Do you mean that the fact that no one got penalised makes it somehow ok? Blimey, it's the whole freaking argument we have been having for the last 3 pages for god's sake... As an extreme, I imagine that since Senna wasn't penalised in '90, it's ok to ram other people even though there's a rule against it, right?

No the fact that no one got penalised explains why Hamilton didn't get penalised, after all this is were it all started with Fiki saying that Hamilton's lap should have been deleted and me trying to explain why it wasn't deleted, and how the stewards operate, and Fiki it seems still arguing that his lap should be deleted which in this round of posts I was initially replying to.

It may explain it, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Neither does singling out someone to be penalised whilst others are being let off.

But no one did that... If you read Fiki's post again, he says that others may have done it too. It doesn't say that they should be let off


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8286
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I saw the footage, and read the stewards' report. They saw images from other cameras and decided there was no clear distinction possible between touching the white line or not. Vettel was given the benefit of the doubt, which I accepted then and now.

So that would be a no you didn't see the picture that showed Vettel's car to be completely off the track, the link to the image was posted on here at the time of the debate.

I think the reason they gave back then is that some part of the wheel itself was above the line (not the rubber, but parts of the wheel), so they argued that they cannot conclusively say that it was outside the track. Although it is not contact with the tarmac, that's what they argued to my understanding. Which is b*llshit, Vettel should have been penalised in my eyes.

Out of interest, do you have that pic Poker?

Indeed and the rules as written, which some often like to produce, say that the car must be in contact with the track, that's a physical requirement, here is the picture.

https://i.imgur.com/WAyPrwK.png


Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34309
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
Just out of interest when a driver runs off the track, what punishment do you see as being appropriate. Or do you see different punishments for different scenarios, corners, etc?


Different punishments for about five different scenarios that occur.

Qualifying, it's zero tolerance.

In the race, being forced off by another driver or sliding off in the rain and clearly losing a lot of time does not require a penalty. Braking too late in the dry and going off and clearly losing a lot of time does not require a penalty. Anything else where it's not clear if there was any time loss then apply a penalty. Are there any other scenarios that I am missing?

The type of corner is irrelevant, we are just looking to see if the car strays fully outside of the white lines or not, and this can be applied on all corner types.

Already mentioned a 2 second penalty per offence in the race, (served at a pit stop or added to their race time if late in the race), a lap time deletion for offences in qualifying, or perhaps a 2 second penalty for offences in qualifying to help provide consistency across qualifying and the race.


Yeah, I was thinking something similar:

In case of FPs and Qs, that's easy, write off the time.

In the race, I'd add something like 5 sec, enough deterrent for any driver. Obviously you have other scenarios, that will need to be judged differently (like one car going off track to avoid contact with another).

All instances of a driver "losing the back of the car" or spin or whatever that makes a car go off track will not be punished.

I see you've already answered my question above in this post, if they delete times in practice then there's no excuse that can be made for the drivers having their times deleted in qualifying.

As for in the race I think you're being rather draconian, the system already in place allows the drivers to abuse track limits 3 times before a 5 second penalty is administered, as opposed to punishing a driver 5 seconds for making a mistake that only gains him a few tenths.

I'm not sure what you mean about the FP, in the end of the day the FP means nothing more than familiarising with the track and getting their setups right. Penalising these times really means nothing to the drivers and teams with respect to the quali/race.

I'm not aware of this rule (in bold), can you point it out please?

I think getting 2-5 secs added for trying to cheekily gain a few tenths is a deterrent enough. If you think about it though, it is not just a few tenths if they do it lap after lap (if they see they can get away with it).

FP times are clearly published on the FIA website so why should illegal laps be shown?

In a situation were qualifying gets cancelled due to bad conditions FP times are used to form the grid.

Regarding the 3 strike rule I'm sure it's been used before but for definite I would say that drivers first get a warning before being penalised, I've never seen a slam dunk 5 second penalty for track limits and I'm not including things like chicanes which comes under short cutting the track but even then I believe a warning is first issued for chicanes themselves?

A scenario were a driver locks up into a corner and runs wide and off the track gets a 2-5 second penalty?

Of course if they do it frequently and the rule is in place they get penalised but that's a bit different from doing it just the once and getting penalised.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34309
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Neither does singling out someone to be penalised whilst others are being let off.

But no one did that... If you read Fiki's post again, he says that others may have done it too. It doesn't say that they should be let off

You sure about that?

Fiki wrote:
I just watched the pole lap again, and Hamilton was off-track in the final corner. Whether others remain on-track for their runs deliberately or inadvertently, it does penalize them if transgressions aren't tackled.
If both of Hamilton's laps were off-track, then he shouldn't be starting from pole position.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8286
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Neither does singling out someone to be penalised whilst others are being let off.

But no one did that... If you read Fiki's post again, he says that others may have done it too. It doesn't say that they should be let off

You sure about that?

Fiki wrote:
I just watched the pole lap again, and Hamilton was off-track in the final corner. Whether others remain on-track for their runs deliberately or inadvertently, it does penalize them if transgressions aren't tackled.
If both of Hamilton's laps were off-track, then he shouldn't be starting from pole position.


Yeah, pretty sure actually. Here, I'll put the relevant bit in bold to make it easier:

Fiki wrote:
Read it again, I wrote that I just watched the pole lap again. Who else was there to focus on, when they only show you the lap that was awarded the pole position? It struck me that the driver - whose name is immaterial - went off-track at the final corner. I know that other drivers went off, and I was just as surprised about their times also being allowed to stand.

I believe an athlete in a sprint number was disqualified for straying into another competitor's lane this year. What makes the FIA think they should allow F1 drivers more leeway?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8286
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:

Different punishments for about five different scenarios that occur.

Qualifying, it's zero tolerance.

In the race, being forced off by another driver or sliding off in the rain and clearly losing a lot of time does not require a penalty. Braking too late in the dry and going off and clearly losing a lot of time does not require a penalty. Anything else where it's not clear if there was any time loss then apply a penalty. Are there any other scenarios that I am missing?

The type of corner is irrelevant, we are just looking to see if the car strays fully outside of the white lines or not, and this can be applied on all corner types.

Already mentioned a 2 second penalty per offence in the race, (served at a pit stop or added to their race time if late in the race), a lap time deletion for offences in qualifying, or perhaps a 2 second penalty for offences in qualifying to help provide consistency across qualifying and the race.


Yeah, I was thinking something similar:

In case of FPs and Qs, that's easy, write off the time.

In the race, I'd add something like 5 sec, enough deterrent for any driver. Obviously you have other scenarios, that will need to be judged differently (like one car going off track to avoid contact with another).

All instances of a driver "losing the back of the car" or spin or whatever that makes a car go off track will not be punished.

I see you've already answered my question above in this post, if they delete times in practice then there's no excuse that can be made for the drivers having their times deleted in qualifying.

As for in the race I think you're being rather draconian, the system already in place allows the drivers to abuse track limits 3 times before a 5 second penalty is administered, as opposed to punishing a driver 5 seconds for making a mistake that only gains him a few tenths.

I'm not sure what you mean about the FP, in the end of the day the FP means nothing more than familiarising with the track and getting their setups right. Penalising these times really means nothing to the drivers and teams with respect to the quali/race.

I'm not aware of this rule (in bold), can you point it out please?

I think getting 2-5 secs added for trying to cheekily gain a few tenths is a deterrent enough. If you think about it though, it is not just a few tenths if they do it lap after lap (if they see they can get away with it).

FP times are clearly published on the FIA website so why should illegal laps be shown?

In a situation were qualifying gets cancelled due to bad conditions FP times are used to form the grid.

Regarding the 3 strike rule I'm sure it's been used before but for definite I would say that drivers first get a warning before being penalised, I've never seen a slam dunk 5 second penalty for track limits and I'm not including things like chicanes which comes under short cutting the track but even then I believe a warning is first issued for chicanes themselves?

A scenario were a driver locks up into a corner and runs wide and off the track gets a 2-5 second penalty?

Of course if they do it frequently and the rule is in place they get penalised but that's a bit different from doing it just the once and getting penalised.


I did not know about the FP scenario and the cancelled Q, it makes sense. Has it ever happened I wonder? If that's the case then they should have the same rules as the Q.

You have a point with the 3 strike rule (in the actual race), well at least to get a warning first before getting a penalty. It will avoid a penalty if they do it once by accident. Locking up wheels doesn't need extra penalty, they lose time on their own, you'll find that both F1 Racer and myself mentioned something like that when asked before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 3087
pokerman wrote:
FP times are clearly published on the FIA website so why should illegal laps be shown?

In a situation were qualifying gets cancelled due to bad conditions FP times are used to form the grid.

Regarding the 3 strike rule I'm sure it's been used before but for definite I would say that drivers first get a warning before being penalised, I've never seen a slam dunk 5 second penalty for track limits and I'm not including things like chicanes which comes under short cutting the track but even then I believe a warning is first issued for chicanes themselves?

A scenario were a driver locks up into a corner and runs wide and off the track gets a 2-5 second penalty?

Of course if they do it frequently and the rule is in place they get penalised but that's a bit different from doing it just the once and getting penalised.



Think you maybe getting mixed up with MotoGP with the three strikes and subsequent actions.

Look at it this way. Its standard practice, it can't be abused, its open to the viewers, the actual time gained is shown on graphics, the lap time is shown as disallowed just after the lap is completed and the strap line at the bottom of the screen explains the offence, what the punishment is and when the penalty must be taken by. Its also displayed on the riders dash.

Surely with all that you must realise its not F1 but MotoGP :lol:

Obviously it works in MotoGP because they don't waste time monitoring corners where you only lose time if you run wide. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:20 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7939
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So you didn't see the picture of Vettel's car with none of the tyres in contact with the track?
I saw the footage, and read the stewards' report. They saw images from other cameras and decided there was no clear distinction possible between touching the white line or not. Vettel was given the benefit of the doubt, which I accepted then and now.

So that would be a no you didn't see the picture that showed Vettel's car to be completely off the track, the link to the image was posted on here at the time of the debate.

I think the reason they gave back then is that some part of the wheel itself was above the line (not the rubber, but parts of the wheel), so they argued that they cannot conclusively say that it was outside the track. Although it is not contact with the tarmac, that's what they argued to my understanding. Which is b*llshit, Vettel should have been penalised in my eyes.

Out of interest, do you have that pic Poker?

Indeed and the rules as written, which some often like to produce, say that the car must be in contact with the track, that's a physical requirement, here is the picture.

https://i.imgur.com/WAyPrwK.png
That's an interesting picture, and it shows a moment the stewards would almost certainly have seen during their deliberations. The problem shown is that while the rounded shoulder of the tyre may be up in the air because of its shape or the because of the effect of cornerning, it may still be above the white line marking the edge of the track. The stewards thought the various images didn't show the car to be definitely beyond the track edge, and gave Vettel the benefit of the doubt.

While the rule as published can be taken to mean physical contact, it doesn't actually say so. Which means the stewards' interpretation of the tyre/wheel overhanging the white line can be seen as valid too. The picture is certainly interesting, but it doesn't prove the stewards wrong in their verdict.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4594
Re the Vettel Monza issue, here's a picture of a football on the goal line. The goal is to the right of the line. The ball is not making any contact with the white line but it's not a goal because part of the ball is still above the line, not past it. This was the argument in Monza due to tyre walls curving out from the part that touches the ground. If you viewed a ball in this position from certain angles, it would without doubt look fully over the line.

Image
www.whoateallthepies.tv

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 3087


Talking about track limits...........and the award goes to......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2724
Lol yeah, literally completes the overtake off circuit and gets awarded 'best action'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34309
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking something similar:

In case of FPs and Qs, that's easy, write off the time.

In the race, I'd add something like 5 sec, enough deterrent for any driver. Obviously you have other scenarios, that will need to be judged differently (like one car going off track to avoid contact with another).

All instances of a driver "losing the back of the car" or spin or whatever that makes a car go off track will not be punished.

I see you've already answered my question above in this post, if they delete times in practice then there's no excuse that can be made for the drivers having their times deleted in qualifying.

As for in the race I think you're being rather draconian, the system already in place allows the drivers to abuse track limits 3 times before a 5 second penalty is administered, as opposed to punishing a driver 5 seconds for making a mistake that only gains him a few tenths.

I'm not sure what you mean about the FP, in the end of the day the FP means nothing more than familiarising with the track and getting their setups right. Penalising these times really means nothing to the drivers and teams with respect to the quali/race.

I'm not aware of this rule (in bold), can you point it out please?

I think getting 2-5 secs added for trying to cheekily gain a few tenths is a deterrent enough. If you think about it though, it is not just a few tenths if they do it lap after lap (if they see they can get away with it).

FP times are clearly published on the FIA website so why should illegal laps be shown?

In a situation were qualifying gets cancelled due to bad conditions FP times are used to form the grid.

Regarding the 3 strike rule I'm sure it's been used before but for definite I would say that drivers first get a warning before being penalised, I've never seen a slam dunk 5 second penalty for track limits and I'm not including things like chicanes which comes under short cutting the track but even then I believe a warning is first issued for chicanes themselves?

A scenario were a driver locks up into a corner and runs wide and off the track gets a 2-5 second penalty?

Of course if they do it frequently and the rule is in place they get penalised but that's a bit different from doing it just the once and getting penalised.


I did not know about the FP scenario and the cancelled Q, it makes sense. Has it ever happened I wonder? If that's the case then they should have the same rules as the Q.

You have a point with the 3 strike rule (in the actual race), well at least to get a warning first before getting a penalty. It will avoid a penalty if they do it once by accident. Locking up wheels doesn't need extra penalty, they lose time on their own, you'll find that both F1 Racer and myself mentioned something like that when asked before.

It nearly happened this year in Japan and they had to qualify on the Sunday?

When you start putting in caveats that drivers shouldn't be penalised if they lose time then that's basically what the stewards have been doing in trying to define which corners need policing.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34309
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Neither does singling out someone to be penalised whilst others are being let off.

But no one did that... If you read Fiki's post again, he says that others may have done it too. It doesn't say that they should be let off

You sure about that?

Fiki wrote:
I just watched the pole lap again, and Hamilton was off-track in the final corner. Whether others remain on-track for their runs deliberately or inadvertently, it does penalize them if transgressions aren't tackled.
If both of Hamilton's laps were off-track, then he shouldn't be starting from pole position.


Yeah, pretty sure actually. Here, I'll put the relevant bit in bold to make it easier:

Fiki wrote:
Read it again, I wrote that I just watched the pole lap again. Who else was there to focus on, when they only show you the lap that was awarded the pole position? It struck me that the driver - whose name is immaterial - went off-track at the final corner. I know that other drivers went off, and I was just as surprised about their times also being allowed to stand.

I believe an athlete in a sprint number was disqualified for straying into another competitor's lane this year. What makes the FIA think they should allow F1 drivers more leeway?

I quoted your original post which only had concerns about drivers being disadvantaged because of Hamilton's illegal lap as you would see it, I'm sure my subsequent posts were to point out that other drivers were doing the same and the track limits were not being observed.

Seemingly people want consistency but perhaps can't be consistent themselves as you view Vettel's lap to be legal in Monza.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34309
shoot999 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
FP times are clearly published on the FIA website so why should illegal laps be shown?

In a situation were qualifying gets cancelled due to bad conditions FP times are used to form the grid.

Regarding the 3 strike rule I'm sure it's been used before but for definite I would say that drivers first get a warning before being penalised, I've never seen a slam dunk 5 second penalty for track limits and I'm not including things like chicanes which comes under short cutting the track but even then I believe a warning is first issued for chicanes themselves?

A scenario were a driver locks up into a corner and runs wide and off the track gets a 2-5 second penalty?

Of course if they do it frequently and the rule is in place they get penalised but that's a bit different from doing it just the once and getting penalised.



Think you maybe getting mixed up with MotoGP with the three strikes and subsequent actions.

Look at it this way. Its standard practice, it can't be abused, its open to the viewers, the actual time gained is shown on graphics, the lap time is shown as disallowed just after the lap is completed and the strap line at the bottom of the screen explains the offence, what the punishment is and when the penalty must be taken by. Its also displayed on the riders dash.

Surely with all that you must realise its not F1 but MotoGP :lol:

Obviously it works in MotoGP because they don't waste time monitoring corners where you only lose time if you run wide. ;)

Yes but I'm sure it's also been done in F1 in the past but normally they give a warning first.

In MotoGP their hard and fast penalty systems work well because in part there's no politics involved. ;)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34309
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So that would be a no you didn't see the picture that showed Vettel's car to be completely off the track, the link to the image was posted on here at the time of the debate.

I think the reason they gave back then is that some part of the wheel itself was above the line (not the rubber, but parts of the wheel), so they argued that they cannot conclusively say that it was outside the track. Although it is not contact with the tarmac, that's what they argued to my understanding. Which is b*llshit, Vettel should have been penalised in my eyes.

Out of interest, do you have that pic Poker?

Indeed and the rules as written, which some often like to produce, say that the car must be in contact with the track, that's a physical requirement, here is the picture.

https://i.imgur.com/WAyPrwK.png
That's an interesting picture, and it shows a moment the stewards would almost certainly have seen during their deliberations. The problem shown is that while the rounded shoulder of the tyre may be up in the air because of its shape or the because of the effect of cornerning, it may still be above the white line marking the edge of the track. The stewards thought the various images didn't show the car to be definitely beyond the track edge, and gave Vettel the benefit of the doubt.

While the rule as published can be taken to mean physical contact, it doesn't actually say so. Which means the stewards' interpretation of the tyre/wheel overhanging the white line can be seen as valid too. The picture is certainly interesting, but it doesn't prove the stewards wrong in their verdict.

It certainly says in contact with the track and the fact that it can be worked around kind of doesn't surprise me.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Last edited by pokerman on Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34309
Asphalt_World wrote:
Re the Vettel Monza issue, here's a picture of a football on the goal line. The goal is to the right of the line. The ball is not making any contact with the white line but it's not a goal because part of the ball is still above the line, not past it. This was the argument in Monza due to tyre walls curving out from the part that touches the ground. If you viewed a ball in this position from certain angles, it would without doubt look fully over the line.

Image
http://www.whoateallthepies.tv

Football is different because the ball is often airborne and there's no requirement for the ball to be in contact with the ground for it to be judged as being across the line or otherwise.

A force majeure for Vettel might have been if one of his wheels was airborme but it wasn't, in that case surely in contact with the track means what it says?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 3087
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
FP times are clearly published on the FIA website so why should illegal laps be shown?

In a situation were qualifying gets cancelled due to bad conditions FP times are used to form the grid.

Regarding the 3 strike rule I'm sure it's been used before but for definite I would say that drivers first get a warning before being penalised, I've never seen a slam dunk 5 second penalty for track limits and I'm not including things like chicanes which comes under short cutting the track but even then I believe a warning is first issued for chicanes themselves?

A scenario were a driver locks up into a corner and runs wide and off the track gets a 2-5 second penalty?

Of course if they do it frequently and the rule is in place they get penalised but that's a bit different from doing it just the once and getting penalised.



Think you maybe getting mixed up with MotoGP with the three strikes and subsequent actions.

Look at it this way. Its standard practice, it can't be abused, its open to the viewers, the actual time gained is shown on graphics, the lap time is shown as disallowed just after the lap is completed and the strap line at the bottom of the screen explains the offence, what the punishment is and when the penalty must be taken by. Its also displayed on the riders dash.

Surely with all that you must realise its not F1 but MotoGP :lol:

Obviously it works in MotoGP because they don't waste time monitoring corners where you only lose time if you run wide. ;)

Yes but I'm sure it's also been done in F1 in the past but normally they give a warning first.

In MotoGP their hard and fast penalty systems work well because in part there's no politics involved. ;)


It has, Max has had a couple this year and last IIRC. Max at Monza using up his 'joker'. Although its basically advice to the driver through the team. And yes MotoGP has a simple system. Do what Mike Webb instructs you to do within 3 laps, otherwise you are out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34309
shoot999 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
FP times are clearly published on the FIA website so why should illegal laps be shown?

In a situation were qualifying gets cancelled due to bad conditions FP times are used to form the grid.

Regarding the 3 strike rule I'm sure it's been used before but for definite I would say that drivers first get a warning before being penalised, I've never seen a slam dunk 5 second penalty for track limits and I'm not including things like chicanes which comes under short cutting the track but even then I believe a warning is first issued for chicanes themselves?

A scenario were a driver locks up into a corner and runs wide and off the track gets a 2-5 second penalty?

Of course if they do it frequently and the rule is in place they get penalised but that's a bit different from doing it just the once and getting penalised.



Think you maybe getting mixed up with MotoGP with the three strikes and subsequent actions.

Look at it this way. Its standard practice, it can't be abused, its open to the viewers, the actual time gained is shown on graphics, the lap time is shown as disallowed just after the lap is completed and the strap line at the bottom of the screen explains the offence, what the punishment is and when the penalty must be taken by. Its also displayed on the riders dash.

Surely with all that you must realise its not F1 but MotoGP :lol:

Obviously it works in MotoGP because they don't waste time monitoring corners where you only lose time if you run wide. ;)

Yes but I'm sure it's also been done in F1 in the past but normally they give a warning first.

In MotoGP their hard and fast penalty systems work well because in part there's no politics involved. ;)


It has, Max has had a couple this year and last IIRC. Max at Monza using up his 'joker'. Although its basically advice to the driver through the team. And yes MotoGP has a simple system. Do what Mike Webb instructs you to do within 3 laps, otherwise you are out.

Like I said a system devoid of politics. :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1410
Is the rule in F1, the car (tyre) has to be in contact with the track, so it’s not like the goal line argument?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 4522
Location: LONDON...!
Asphalt_World wrote:
Re the Vettel Monza issue, here's a picture of a football on the goal line. The goal is to the right of the line. The ball is not making any contact with the white line but it's not a goal because part of the ball is still above the line, not past it. This was the argument in Monza due to tyre walls curving out from the part that touches the ground. If you viewed a ball in this position from certain angles, it would without doubt look fully over the line.

Image
http://www.whoateallthepies.tv

Its contact patch.

The tyre has to be touching the white line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:33 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7939
Location: Belgium
Johnson wrote:
Is the rule in F1, the car (tyre) has to be in contact with the track, so it’s not like the goal line argument?
It is in Appendix L to the International Sporting Code of the FIA.
App L CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS wrote:
c) Drivers must use the track at all times. For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not.
Should a car leave the track for any reason, and without prejudice to 2(d) below, the driver may rejoin. However, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any advantage. A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track.
d) Causing a collision, repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack of control over the car (such as leaving the track) will be reported to the Stewards and may entail the imposition of penalties up to and including the exclusion of any driver concerned.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 4594
pokerman wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Re the Vettel Monza issue, here's a picture of a football on the goal line. The goal is to the right of the line. The ball is not making any contact with the white line but it's not a goal because part of the ball is still above the line, not past it. This was the argument in Monza due to tyre walls curving out from the part that touches the ground. If you viewed a ball in this position from certain angles, it would without doubt look fully over the line.

Image
http://www.whoateallthepies.tv

Football is different because the ball is often airborne and there's no requirement for the ball to be in contact with the ground for it to be judged as being across the line or otherwise.

A force majeure for Vettel might have been if one of his wheels was airborme but it wasn't, in that case surely in contact with the track means what it says?

It's got nothing whatsoever with a ball or tyre being airborne. The pictures shows a football on the ground, not touching a white line but also not having gone past it.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:42 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 17032
Asphalt_World wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Re the Vettel Monza issue, here's a picture of a football on the goal line. The goal is to the right of the line. The ball is not making any contact with the white line but it's not a goal because part of the ball is still above the line, not past it. This was the argument in Monza due to tyre walls curving out from the part that touches the ground. If you viewed a ball in this position from certain angles, it would without doubt look fully over the line.

Image
http://www.whoateallthepies.tv

Football is different because the ball is often airborne and there's no requirement for the ball to be in contact with the ground for it to be judged as being across the line or otherwise.

A force majeure for Vettel might have been if one of his wheels was airborme but it wasn't, in that case surely in contact with the track means what it says?

It's got nothing whatsoever with a ball or tyre being airborne. The pictures shows a football on the ground, not touching a white line but also not having gone past it.


Yep but in F1 the rules specify the car has to be in "contact" with the track. If a similar rule applied in football where a goal was scored if the ball was entirely in contact with the area behind the goal line the in the above example a goal would be scored.


Last edited by Mod Titanium on Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This thread has served its purpose


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Battle Far, Bing [Bot], Junglist, yodasarmpit and 55 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group