F1 News & Discussions > General F1 Discussion

Spitballing ideas for assigning 'blame' for a crash

(1/2) > >>

Jericoke:
As F1 fans, we really do want 'close hard fought racing'.  That's going to lead to crashes that are 'racing incidents' where fair minded drivers both feel entitled to same piece of race track at the same time.

Other crashes are going to be caused by drivers clearly violating the rules, and it's easy to assign blame.

One problem though is some drivers are very crafty and capable of creating a crash that looks like a racing incident.  Or are willing to get into a 'racing incident' that they could have avoided.

In the spirit of making the policing of these incidents a little more clear cut I had a thought:  if a collision has no clear 'wrong' driver, but clearly someone was wrong, why not assign the penalty to the driver ahead in the standings?

This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, so feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, or what would work better, but in a situation where Hamilton and Max are fighting for the championship, of course Max benefits from a double knock out, so it's not the same risk for him as it is for Hamilton. If Max were automatically blamed for a crash with Hamilton, he'd think twice about taking those chance.  If the tables turn, then Hamilton will have to think twice.

It encourages passing, because drivers will know the cost of 'closing the door'.  It will keep the championship close, by giving the trailing driver a slight advantage.  It wouldn't just apply to first place either, even the midfield and back enders would have a little more room to make passes.

Ideally it would never come up, but if it does, it's an easy tool for the stewards to use for those types of collisions.

Monty:
Jeri makes an interesting point but frankly there just should not be that many incidents that would call for such a system.
I am not kidding anyone that I could ever have been an F1 driver but I raced in lower series and the rules and likely outcomes are just the same.
On most race circuits there is only one racing line (there are exceptions where the corner is really wide and has options from slow in/fast out to fast in/slow out and every combination between but these are very rare). If a driver commits to the racing line there will be no option to adjust that line mid-corner, this is why the phrase 'it was my corner' came about. This was evident in both Verstappen / Hamilton clashes in Italy. On the first lap Hamilton had committed to the corner (it was his corner) but Verstappen chose to drive the corner as if Hamilton wasn't there. Hamilton had the option to go wide and off the circuit or crash - he avoided the crash. After Hamilton left the pits he was again clearly in front when entering the corner and took the racing line (it was his corner) but Verstappen chose to drive at a non-existent gap as if Hamilton wasn't there. On this occasion Hamilton had no choice. I'm sure he never imagined that Verstappen would have been stupid enough to launch an attack there. However, even if was aware Verstappen was trying to 'undertake', he would not have been able to change lines without risking flying off the track anyway (it is simply Physics).
No sensible driver (in any series) tries an overtake on the inside where there are kerbs in place to deliberately discourage such ludicrous tactics. Due to the laws of physics the outcome is inevitable, the car will get pushed outwards to where the other car is already positioned. Verstappen knew exactly what he was doing. He intended to take Hamilton out, but (like Silverstone) he got it badly wrong. On this occasion they were both out - but he knew this would stop Hamilton going on to win and therefore penalised Hamilton more than it did Verstappen.

Scott:
An interesting idea Jeri.  A 3 place grid penalty for Sochi is a bit of a joke considering how brainless and dangerous the “accident” was.  I would like home to get a ten grid drop and a final warning before a 3 race ban if he does anything like it again.

Alianora La Canta:

--- Quote from: Jericoke on September 14, 2021, 01:55:08 PM ---In the spirit of making the policing of these incidents a little more clear cut I had a thought:  if a collision has no clear 'wrong' driver, but clearly someone was wrong, why not assign the penalty to the driver ahead in the standings?

--- End quote ---

If someone is clearly wrong in a collision, there should be a clear "wrong" driver. If there are multiple clear "wrong" drivers, in my opinion, all "wrong" drivers should receive a penalty according to their contribution. The stewards dislike that approach and always have, but I think it would reduce problems. You can argue the toss all you like, but you have to bear the consequences of your own actions.

Andy B:
Jeri I could see your idea generating more "accidents" not less and there are permutations that has benefits for the driver behind in the standings.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page