Sergio Perez
Sahara Force India – Mexican GP 2016
James Moy Photography
If the Mexican Grand Prix showed us one thing, it is that as we approach the end of the 2016 Formula 1 season and prepare to shoot the supposed silver bullet of a technical regulation overhaul designed, as always, to “improve the show,” the sport finds itself at a moral and regulatory crossroads.
The fight is one between over regulation and a laissez-faire attitude towards the rules of racing, and falls particularly into two categories: track limits and what Mercedes earlier this season termed “the rules of engagement.” There is no easy answer to the question of how one deals with either, for both sides of both arguments have merit. But choose the sport must. And choose it must soon.
Track Detail
Budpaest 2016
James Moy Photography
Track limits has been a bugbear of the sport for many years. Of course, it is a problem which never used to exist. You had a racetrack, you had a painted white line on the side of it and then you had grass. Or dirt. In some places you had kerbs but they tended to knock your fillings out or be so high that they’d rip your suspension off so driving on them wasn’t advisable.
Gravel traps came and disappeared, at first deemed to be a safety measure and then too dangerous in places. In a bid to make the sport ever safer, run off became de rigeur. Get it wrong and you can still get it back seemed to be the overarching philosophy. Fans want to see their heroes competing, after all, not finishing a race in the kitty litter. Kerbs were flattened.
Run off became an extension of the track. Rules about having “all four off” had to be invented. Because racing drivers will take the shortest and fastest route possible.
Bernie Ecclestone hit the headlines in Mexico for claiming that we should put walls up around the tracks. While the safety lobby got up in arms, nobody with any common sense could take the suggestion at all seriously. But the intention behind Bernie’s comments was and is sound and is agreed upon by every driver I’ve ever met. There needs to be a punishment for going off track. Be it losing time or going home, exceeding track limits requires a punishment.
These are, as we keep being told, the best drivers in the world. Part of the allure is watching them dance a car around a complex racetrack. Straight lining corners does not a hero make.
Lap 1, Turn 1
Mexican GP 2016
James Moy Photography
Case in point was Turns 1 and 2, lap 1 in Mexico. If you have a gravel trap in that vast swathe of grass at Turn 1, neither Mercedes makes it to Turn 3.
Hamilton was too late on the brakes, had to get off them to avoid a flatspot, but rather than attempting to make the corner simply playstationed it across the grass. Rosberg makes the corner but in a side-by-side with Verstappen bangs wheels and is knocked off track. The overhead then showed us something a bit naughty. He goes to return to the track, turning right towards the asphalt. Knowing at this point that he will likely have to pull in behind Verstappen and likely also be overtaken by Hulkenberg, instead he makes no effort to make T2, instead turning left, gunning the throttle and maintaining his position.
It was all too easy to say that he was banged off track by Verstappen and thus shouldn’t have been penalised. The reality is that he was moving back to the track, but decided better of it in order to keep position.
That’s both Mercedes drivers opting to take to the grass. That’s the first two guys on the grid deciding that their race is better suited by avoiding a corner than actually taking it.
That the Safety Car came out and bunched the field, thus negating any “lasting advantage,” critically the words within the regulations that must be fulfilled in order for exceeding track limits to be punished, means both Hamilton and Rosberg got away with cutting a corner. But should they have been able to?
Track Detail
Budapest 2016
James Moy Photography
Of course the same thing happened with Verstappen later in the race. He’d got it wrong in his attempted pass on Rosberg earlier in the race and his sideways moment trying to keep the car on track was the sort of thing we all want to see. Him cutting the corner to keep position in his fight with Vettel was not. And the call for him to give the place back is something that has become a necessary evil.
Earlier this season there was a suggestion from the likes of Toto Wolff and Christian Horner, men whose judgements I usually admire and agree with, that we simply do away with track limits and let the drivers go to town. But then, what is the point in marking out a racing circuit?
The sweepers at Austin? Screw it, just straight line them. St Devote at Monaco? Well actually if you double back there, then you hit the access road that takes you to Tabac so you might as well just do the Formula E track. Imagine if we were still racing at Indianapolis. No track limits? Sod the infield guys, I’m just going to drive the oval.
Yes that’s extreme and of course not at all realistic, but the idea of getting rid of track limits just doesn’t sit well with me.
But then we have a problem. Because while I want to see track limits enforced, what do we do about truly great overtaking battles, drivers on the limit, where one is edged a touch wide but makes the move stick despite having all four off? Verstappen on Nasr in Spa last year was, to the letter of the law, illegal. But it was a damn fine move.
That’s your problem. Because if you want to be a stickler for the rules, you can’t then just let them go when it suits you.
If running one wheel, let alone four, off track is punishment in itself due to the potential to lose time, then one does not need to regulate for exceeding track limits. And so the only solution here seems to be to completely change the current trend of creating run off and kerbing around every corner of every track. Asphalt, a white painted line and grass / dirt is all you need. But the cost of retrograding every F1 circuit would be vast. And therefore unlikely.
And so we will have to come up with a stringent set of rules and stick to them.
Verstappen vs Raikkonen
Hungarian Grand Prix 2016
James Moy Photography
The same seems to be true in the art of racing and defending, or what Mercedes referred to as “the rules of engagement.”
Max Verstappen has been much maligned this season for the tactics he employs in his defense of position. Made possible by his deft touch on the brakes and a car in the Red Bull which you can stick on its nose and stop on a dime, I’ve been in Verstappen’s corner for the vast majority of what have been seen as questionable manoeuvres. For the most part of the season, so were many of the drivers. The trick was that Verstappen wasn’t actually doing anything illegal. But it was a bit naughty.
That the FIA clarified (and it’s crucial here we note it was a clarification rather than an actual new rule) the regulation for acceptable driving in the braking zone in defense of a position, came after much lobbying from, amongst others, Sebastian Vettel. Nobody had much of an issue with the clarification because, of course, the rules hadn’t actually changed. But it meant that defensive driving was now a hot topic and flashing bright and clear on race stewards’ radars. Ironically it would be Vettel himself who would be the first driver to suffer under the new hard line policies his own lobbying had created.
He and Ferrari cried foul, a race result taken away from them by bureaucracy. Of course it was that very same bureaucracy over track limits which had handed them a podium in the first place. The same bureaucracy over the strict regulation of racing etiquette which they had pushed for in the wake of the “Verstappen chop.” Ironic, yes, but as a purist it is immensely sad, too.
Be careful what you wish for…
Sebastian Vettel – Mexican Grand Prix 2016
James Moy Photography
How hard can a driver defend? How hard can a driver attack? How much of the trailing car needs to be alongside the leading car in order for the car behind to have a right to be given space? And how much space? Precisely what percentage of a car needs to be alongside for a door to be left open? And when we say open do we mean wide open or just ajar? If a driver makes the move stick but has all four wheels off the track does he have to give the position back? And if so should it be done immediately? What if it the position is given back before a DRS detection point, meaning the driver then has an advantage to take the position straight back again under DRS?
It’s all become so clinical and methodical and cold. Where’s the excitement in coming up with a scientific formula as to what creates an acceptable overtaking move?
The sport needs to think long and hard over the winter about how it deals with these problems. In over regulating the means by which a driver can race, you threaten to neuter the sport. In investigating every overtaking move you take away the joy and the excitement. Racing should be hard, it should be on the edge. No it shouldn’t be dangerous, but it shouldn’t be easy either. Why can’t drivers bang wheels? Why can’t bargeboards go flying? Why can’t a driver overtake another on the grass, where he should theoretically be losing time and going slower?
But then by that same token, if you under regulate the sport, you threaten to create chaos. Why can’t the best of the best stay within the lines? Why can’t they ply their trade and play their sport within the confines of the playable surface? Why can’t the best of the best execute a move for position without reverting to knocking the other guy off the track?
There is no easy solution because you can see the arguments from both sides. And both have merit.
Ultimately the key here is consistency, clarity and certainty.
The overriding feeling after the Mexican Grand Prix was one of disappointment. It was all just such a messy, unsatisfactory end.
Nobody wants to see races decided in the stewards’ office. Nobody wants to see great racing penalised. But nobody wants to see rules flouted and liberties taken.
Is this Formula 1’s impossible question? I hope not. Because the ramifications for our enjoyment of the sport are vast.
The Buxton Blog 
Great food for thought all of this. I am not a fan of NASCAR style “rubbing is racing” way of doing things. To me it doesn’t demonstrate talent to knock a rival out of the way with your can. (this isn’t supposed to be “dodge ’ems) But I do believe we have to have some clear cur rules about passing under braking. Also track limits need to be agreed upon. Perhaps back to old school. Marshal’s call in all 4 offs. Position given back while race still taking place. The after race penalties should be limited to un-sportsman stuff. But make the post race penalty severe enough that drivers are motivated to give back on the spot.
Just my thoughts. I am no expert.
The situation in Mexico was akin to the drunk person who falls off a horse, gets back on and falls off the other side of the horse.
Max Verstappen has, for the last year or so, been attempting moves that great drivers have successfully done in the past – and frequently failed, on several occasions damaging his rival’s car in the process. And despite clear regulations against both dangerous driving and causing a collision, he never got penalised for it. By Spa, stewards were having to do never-before-seen-nor-permitted-in-regulations informal reprimands in order to avoid giving Max any actual penalty for his blatantly forbidden driving. Most of his rivals may be less dramatic to watch, but that is because they are, by necessity, better at following the rules as written (whereas Max, as he has stated at least once, only considers rules if he thinks he will get a penalty for them).
This had two effects. One, which you’ve alluded to, is that the initially sympathetic reaction from rivals turned into anger, as they realised Max would never learn to follow the regulations if it was left up to the FIA “unassisted”. The other is that other people’s driving – notably Sebastian Vettel’s – deteriorated as they experimented with some of the newly-not-forbidden techniques.
So the FIA tried changing tack without measuring the amount of tack needed. This resulted in a ban of things that, if properly executed, cause no problem – and due to a lack of interest, meant that there was still no guarantee that either the experimenters would be required to stick to moves that were within regulations nor that the non-experimenters would be safe from penalties if they stuck with their pre-existing repertoire. Call it a clarification because no words got changed in the regulations, but if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck, even if it looks more like a goose. Add the usual over-scrutiny that results in new stuff being tried, and over-scrutiny probably shouldn’t have surprised anyone. And oh look, the drunk has fallen off the other side of the horse.
(What did surprise me was the post-race decision against Verstappen that occurred without a full stewards’ meeting – by not sending that to the International Court of Appeal on the basis of FIA Statutes being breached, Red Bull look like banking themselves a huge favour, and they’re not bound by the statute of limitations that usually applies to protests of race results due to the Statute being involved).
It’s not supposed to get to the point where I feel like the better driving in single-seaters happens in GP3 rather than F1, or better standards of regulation in IMSA than in F1 (note: neither GP3 nor IMSA are or purport to be the pinnacle of its respective discipline). But I’m approaching that point. I’m not sure what sort of sobriety medicine will work here, but it is certainly needed. Or find the horse a better rider.
I remember you from f1ngers, mid 2000s. Saludos!
I really appreciate your view Will. Track limist are and will remain a problem if the FIA is not setting clear rules. And even though they do set rules in a near future, who can guarantee it will be applied fairly and in the same way to every drivers?
As far as I am concerned, the real problem yesterday was not even the punishments but the lack of consistency between the decisions from the marshalls. You never know who will get what depending on hs name, his team etc…
Clear rules will never solve every problems by itself. It needs to get along with objectivity in the decision taking process.
According to Whiting the Mercedes had cooled off brake discs at the front, which gave us the impression that Hamilton just braked too late. When in fact he did brake on time but it was his car that didn’t want to/could slow down.
But these guys are supposed to be the best in the world. Yes? No? First lap, first corner after a long run from the start. So be prepared for the possibility of cold brakes. If Hamilton’s brakes had cooled off, the he did brake too late…
You are clearly a Verstappen Hater. What You call blatendly wrong was not wrong iT was naughty. But never illegal bevause iT was ececuted perfectly
Like almost every issue in life, nothing is black or white, it’s all shades of grey. In my opinion it’s basically impossible to make concrete rules that govern the issues of track limits and moving under braking(aka defending a corner).
Track limits seem easier to control via physical means (sand traps etc) rather than rules, but then again, if Rosberg is bumped off by Verstappen (as an example) it seems unfair that Rosberg’s race is severely compromised and Verstappen continues on. I suppose other rules would kick in (forcing another driver off track) and Rosberg would have to take his lumps, because that’s racing.
What I don’t understand is how Hamilton’s and Verstappen’s excursions off track were treated so differently. It makes no sense to talk about no ‘lasting’ advantage because of the safety car on lap one. If there had been a sand trap in that area Hamilton would either have bogged down somewhat (or completely) or would have made much more of an effort to make the corner, probably damaging his tires severely. In either case he would have lost several places. So he did get a lasting advantage: he retained first place.
It is astonishing to me that Vettel was punished for that bit of driving. From 1950 until 2 weeks ago, we would all have said ‘what wonderful driving by both drivers’. It appears to me (and I may be very wrong), that if Vettel had not been so unbelievably rude to Charlie Whiting, the stewards would have had nothing to say.
Vettel did move over a bit, but he left plenty of room both before, during and after the corner. It seems a ‘no harm no foul’ condition applies. Similarly Rosberg and Raikonnen a couple of races ago and most of Verstappen’s controversial moves.
At last we are getting a bit of exciting action on track and now it’s all banned…
I think you called it in your article, Will: re-introduce gravel, or dirt, or grass or anything to penalise the drivers that exceed limits. We need the penalties to be dished out by the track, not the stewards. As soon as a key decision is referred ‘upstairs’ the race result is, in my view, contrived.
I agree there would be costs involved in removing run-offs to, but there’s hardly a lack of funds in F1 – it’s just in the wrong places. In my opinion, if the sport asked circuits for gravel traps they should be stumping up the cash, or at least subsidising it. It’s an investment in the show after all.
Would a return to gravel traps have to be wholesale? Or would a 1- or 2-cars width strip around the edge of the track be sufficient to deter?
Whenever the topic of run-offs is brought up I can’t help but think back to Monza 2012 and Vettel’s move around the outside of Alonso through curva grande into turn three. Fantastic ballsy racing. I miss that.
Can’t imagine how boring so many great Circuit Gilles Villeneuve races would be without walls and with so much run off area. The hairpin hasn’t suffered because there is still a 330 > 50 deceleration zone and lots of passing, but imagine moving all those walls around turns 3 > 9 and replacing with run offs? No thanks! This is why the old tracks are still the most exciting and challenging.
Good stuff. I don’t think there is an easy answer. I actually think Rosberg’s cross over was worse than any of them – it was clear he saw he was going to drop two spots and took a quick turn to the left to stay in second. Hamilton did not actually get an advantage that I could see and his was a result of a lock up of the right front. That said, they could have given both Rosberg and Hamilton 5 second penalty after a lap or two in.
Vettel’s penalty was probably right. However, to be fair, Verstappen did this several times, much to Vettel’s chagrin, without penalty earlier in the season. Only after being silent, then a reprimand, have the F1 brass decided to start invoking those penalties. Verstappen would likely be lower in the standings if those were applied consistently all season (Not dissing him, I love his driving in general. He’s a future star).
Will,
Missed you this week, hope all is well with your family.
While the finish was exciting, I would have preferred the conversation to be more about the Ricciardo/Vettel moves. I didn’t think what Vettel did was wrong, but I don’t know anything. What I saw was two great drivers use immense skill attempting to pass/block, and in the end, neither of them being knocked out. Maybe Vettel moved twice under braking, I don’t know (will have to watch again), but it was great wheel to wheel action from my seat.
This issue has been brewing for a loooong time, and it finally came to a head.
Race control has been sleep at the wheel for the entire season maybe even longer, so the hot heads (the younger, the hotter) will naturally start taking advantage. If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying hard enough, eh?
I’m not a fan of Vettel (multi 21 soured me on him), but his outburst towards Charlie Whiting was spot on.
Verstappen’s off was a no brainer. I’ve watched Formula One for years and years, and there’s not a doubt in my mind the veteran drivers would’ve ceded that position immediately even without race control ordering them to. Furthermore race control should’ve immediately ordered him to give the position back. What on earth was there to debate about it? Were they on a coffee break or something? If Whiting and his colleagues responsible for enforcing the rules aren’t willing or incapable of doing that, maybe they should step out and let people who will/can take their place?
NHL has a particular way of enforcing rules, unwritten and not, should referees fail. That same thing will happen to F1 in some form or another should this sort of bullshit continue.
Spot on commentary. I always thought a material similar to kitty litter that could slow but not trap the cars permanently. Right now F1 is just another sport where the rule committee seems bent on destroying the thing it’s trying to regulate. ONE RACE OFFICIAL THAT FOLLOWS THE CIRCUS is absolutely necessary. Without this, every other discussion is moot.
Will, while I miss you on the US F1 broadcasts; your brilliant commentary shows that a Holiday gives one clarity.
Thank you
As I see it Verstappen is a brilliant driver. But his cheeky immaturity is at this time a detriment. From the actions of the FiA it would appear that they are grasping to control F1 and / or wanting to kill the sport. The last thing F1 needs is the FiA of the Senna Prost era.
Last point, my friend mentioned this, and it’s EASY to do. STOP and GO in the pits for any infraction like running off the course through the run-off area. If you’re pushed off track by someone else, or to avoid an incident, otherwise you serve the penalty.
One idea about run offs, groove them so they vibrate the daylights out of car and driver. It would slow the car without increasing danger, nor putting the car out of the race.
Driver B gets shoved off into the runoff, they slow, return to the track and the stewards make Driver A give back position.
All done at reasonable cost & done in the off season.
Let’s just hope the world title isn’t in anyway questionable re – track limits…
Wih track limits, it really bugs me. One week “oh this part of the track is off limits” then we do Austin and well, I wasn’t even sure what the track even was then, it was like watching people play Mario Kart. Gravel I understand probably can’t return as circuits have to host many other events with different rules but there’s got to be something. It’s just embarrassing to watch.
It’s the same with the penalties. They seem to pick whether or not they’re going to even bother looking at it, some weeks moves fine then it’s given a penalty.
Currently we have runoff areas you could use as car parks, rules that are sometimes enforced, it’s not good for fans nor people showing up at the event.
I agree ( im a mercedes fan ) but i think had the stewards told max to give up the position like his crew did Seb would not have been in that spot so how can you penalize him for a move he should not have had to make
It seems to me that the sport which aspires to be at the pinnacle of technology could, at a reasonable cost (applying F1 standards to “reasonable”), install electronic sensors around the perimeter of the course. If your transponder indicates you ran wide (or inside), penalty ensues. No questions, no appeals, no leniency. There is consistency, clarity and certainty. No equipment damaged, no lives endangered.
Yes, perhaps there is a cost to be paid in terms of racing intensity, but racers are adaptive people. They will learn. Consider, also, that the ridiculous width of many F1 tracks will mitigate that problem. The only problem I see is that if I am being pushed off under this system I may attempt to claim my part of the track so tenaciously that wheel over wheel contact is made more likely.
I think we have this problem because “we” have chosen not to resolve it. With 86% of races over the last three seasons won by the same team, “the show” needs another story line beyond the Lewis vs. Nico soap opera.
Your analogies of cutting corners in Monaco and Indianapolis are an unrealistic exaggeration. Tracks have mechanisms to prevent drivers from gaining excessive advantage by going off-limits, be it through kerbs, grass or blocked areas. What I don’t understand is the current obsession with track limits – stewards were very lax in Austin, and did that create any problems? If everyone goes four wheels off track in a corner, no one is gaining an advantage.
Very insightful. Im glad i found this site. Intelligent article and intellegent comments
Now, I have a humourus suggestion to keep the cars inbetween the lines. If we take F1s governing body and the stewards tied them up and placed them in the run off areas around the track, that should solve the problem very quickly with inconsisant rules
Just a small point. You mention grass instead of run off. Well that’s what we had at turn one\two in Mexico and people still complain it wasn’t enough. Basically, Lewis had a car issue that caused a lock up (his brake temp was offset) and he couldn’t slow down so he went over the grass. Drivers are allowed to make mistakes. It was a mistake. Driver behind him were also making mistakes so they couldn’t take advantage of Lewis’.
All this lasting advantage talk is meaningless. He took his car over the grass and that could easily have lead to all sorts of problems, a puncture, broken front wing. It didn’t, he was lucky. He rolled the dice going over the grass and it could have backfired but it didn’t. If that had been a tarmac run off then he’d have had a massive advantage.
This strikes me as selection bias. Because Lewis didn’t get a perceived disadvantage everyone cries foul but he did get a disadvantage that he managed very well indeed. He took the risk of the grass and got lucky (not illegal, drivers are allowed to leave the circuit for a mistake and re-join) he then managed a flat spotted tyre and was still 0.5 seconds a lap faster then ROS. Because it looked like he had it easy, it’s a foul but it wasn’t. Why don’t we champion his ability to recover from his mistake and still pull away at the front with a serious vibration to manage. What a drive!
First of all, Will, I know you’ve had some personal things going on, and we as fans are glad to see you back posting. Stay strong, Mate!
I agree that this may be a turning point in the sport. There was some great action in Mexico, and to see it all muddled up by post-race shenanigans left a bad taste in my mouth.
There HAS to be some middle ground that can be attained and maintained here.
I am hopeful that if Ross Brawn returns in some kind of intermediary role between the teams and the FIA, he may be able to help center the sport. Time will tell.
Line the track with foam blocks every few feet like they used to do with straw bales. One second stop-and-go for every block you damage. Teammate pushes you wide? Too bad. Brakes not up to temp? Too bad. No place to go in turn 1 mayhem? Too bad. Track limits are track limits, break them and suffer, regardless of the reason why. Black and white rule, much like the asphalt and the white line defining the track limits.
If drivers want to act like it’s a video game, then treat them like they’re driving in one. Foam blocks won’t make things dangerous, and if made of something plant-based, will be nice and biodegradable. You can even keep your acres of asphalt runoff, so after a car blows through the blocks they can recover and re-join the track to go serve their penalty.
Inconsistency in the stewarding is one of, if not my greatest frustration with F1 at present, especially when penalties seem to be dished out all too frequently in general.
I was dismayed by the penalty applied for Rosberg’s overtake on Verstappen in Hockenheim. Nico was punished for forcing Max off the track but if there was no run-off area and there was a barrier or a gravel trap, I’ve no doubt Max would’ve given up the position and kept the car well inside track limits.
I fail to understand how this warranted a penalty when we fairly frequently see drivers run each other beyond the track limits at the start of a race and get away with it.
Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I feel a lot of situations that would have been passed off as ‘racing incidents’ are now resulting in reprimands and I feel it’s become to a war between the drivers as they all look to get an advantage over each other.
It began with Kimi and Max. Then it was Seb or Max. At the weekend, we had Ricciardo have a go and Seb and Lewis. Nico wasn’t happy with Max. Where does it end?
Drama in F1 is great, but it needs centre on the racing. Too often, it’s centred on the regulations. That’s why it’s a problem and why I appreciate Will writing on it.
I have been an F1 fan for more years than I care to admit. I am in the process of trying to get a friend to watch more F1 racing ( he is quite knowledgeable about motor sports especially moto GP ) . His latest comment about F1 is ” technology is amazing, but not promoted at all. Inconsistency about track limits and FIA officiating is a joke for the supposed pinical of motor sports”
It’s hard to get new fans into a sport like this when you cannot give an intelligent rebuttal.
Your article couldn’t have hit the nail on the head any better. Good work, hopefully some one in authority is listening.
Welcome back, Will. We missed you.
Will,
Really been missing your balanced thoughts. All the best to you and your family