FIA Race Discussion [Archive]

[F4H Rosso]

I actually cannot believe he's trying to defend what's in that clip. The final turn incident, fine, I can accept that MAY have been a mistake but the one into the hairpin?! That's absolutely a targeted attack. It's so obvious.

 

[HellzFire]

I just thought that people may want to use a account not intended to compete to take direct competion out. Just a thought.

Apparently Star ranking will fix that?

Hopefully. I had the same thought as you after seeing those punts.

If i was Kaz, he would be perma banned for that. Poor Augh.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Some people just have a hard time accepting the changing of the guard when it is themselves that is on the way out and be replaced by a newer upcoming generation.

Eventually we all face that crossroads and changing of the guard on many aspects within life, just part of handing the world over to those that come after us. All generations face it eventually.

I do not know you Matty but I think you have without a doubt acted very respectfully concerning this situation which is much more than I can say about certain others!

 

[ivann]

But that same logic DOES NOT APPLY as to how that sector of track will be viewed when it concerns car positioning in relation to what car would have the the rights to what line from the beginning of turn 1 through the exit of turn 2.

It is so hard to understand that a constant continuous radius would only have 1 apex while a series of turns separated by a straight no matter how short would the be 2 separate turns each with the distinct properties of having their OWN INDIVIDUAL ENTRANCE-APEX- EXIT which would clearly classify them as BEING SEPARATE CORNERS with each corner possessing its own separate rules concerning a racers entitlement to the preferred racing line totally independent of the other non connected corner?

Talking about someone that lacks understanding concerning the rules of the racetrack.

I finished my discussion regarding this incident in previous posts. Case closed.

About the corner (since you insist), and DriftMethod wrote that there are problems with the source material I referenced because its not from official site of any racing organization. He is right and one of the few that discuss the topic with understanding.

Now, I find https://www.lemans.org/en site as official.
Société Sportive Professionnelle de l’Automobile Club de l’Ouest (“SSP ACO”), a Société par Actions Simplifiée (simplified joint-stock company) with share capital of €1,000,000.00, entered in the Le Mans company register under No. 433.666.229, and whose headquarters are located at Circuit des 24 Heures, 72019 Le Mans Cedex 2, France, and Le Mans Endurance Management (“LMEM”), a Société par Actions Simplifiée (simplified joint-stock company) with share capital of €113,300.00, entered in the Le Mans company register under No. 451.336.184, and whose headquarters are located at Circuit des 24 Heures, 72019 Le Mans Cedex 2, France, sell “Experience Live” packs through their websites and application enabling the purchaser to view videos of motorsport races from the World Endurance Championship (FIA WEC) including the 24 Hours of Le Mans.

Here is a picture of Bugatti Circuit that is 1 of the Le Mans layouts:

Here is a picture with corner numbers:

You can clearly see that corners 6 and 11 are stated as single corner, and look very much like DTG last corner.
Aerial pictures of the two:

GIF passing through Garage Vert:
https://lotus111dotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/garage-vert-1.gif
And Formula 4 onboard passing through Garage Vert and later through Le Raccordement:

 

[Matty28]

Some people just have a hard time accepting the changing of the guard when it is themselves that is on the way out and be replaced by a newer upcoming generation.

Eventually we all face that crossroads and changing of the guard on many aspects within life, just part of handing the world over to those that come after us. All generations face it eventually.

I do not know you Matty but I think you have without a doubt acted very respectfully concerning this situation which is much more than I can say about certain others!

Cheers, your explanations were superb

 

[Seikenfreak]

That hairpin strike is somethin special. That wasn't just torpedo-ing.. that was a homing missile.

On a positive note, did some more PC2, me and this other random dude were having a great race. Was on Spa, high speed last set of turns, I was on his bumper so hard.. and some lap traffic decides to crash us out. I let the other get past me again before the finish line. He said thank you and "nice sportsmanship" at the end. Things like this feel good to do. Not everything is about winning or losing.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

About the corner (since you insists), and DriftMethod wrote that there are problems with the source material I referenced because its not from official site of any racing organization. He is right and one of the few that discuss the topic with understanding.

Just because you find something on one tracks private official website that for whatever reason decides to combine and number some of the corners on the track does not change the fact that those corners depicted in your "example" still distinctly show each of the 4 actual corners which they call #6 and #11 is actually the correct terminology or those tracks corners are actually correct from a technical standpoint.

Regardless of how you number them they have the distinction of each corner independently has its own unique and separate entrance- apex and exit which in itself defines all parts necessary to be classified as a complete corner within itself.

Same as you could call a set of esses such as those on Kyoto uphill section corner two from the bottom to the top of the hill does not make it correct or one corner regardless of what you call it or how you number it.

Below is an example of a complete corner and in my opinion each individual corner that meets those specifications as I listed above is a corner unto itself regardless of how you number it.

You can put lipstick on a pig and call it whatever you like but at the end of the day it is still a pig!

 

[ferrari312t]

The so-called word "cheating" is not in my dictionary m8. I am afraid hahaha

The only thing in your dictionary is ''Superior WRX Power''. XD

 

[ivann]

Just because you find something on one tracks private official website that for whatever reason decides to combine and number some of the corners on the track does not change the fact that those corners depicted in your "example" still distinctly show each of the 4 actual corners which they call #6 and #11 is actually the correct terminology or those tracks corners are actually correct from a technical standpoint.

Same as you could call a set of esses such as those on Kyoto uphill section corner two from the bottom to the top of the hill does not make it correct or one corner regardless of what you call it or how you number it.

Below is an example of a complete corner and in my opinion each individual corner that meets those specifications as I listed above is a corner unto itself regardless of how you number it.View attachment 747382

You can put lipstick on a pig and call it whatever you like but at the end of the day it is still a pig!

So with that Paint photo you disregard "Le Mans track private official website that for whatever reason decides to number the corners on the track"?
clap, clap, clap.
Btw. there are esses on Bugatti Circuit with separate numbers thus separate corners (for your Kyoto assumption)

 

[DriftMethod]

About the corner (since you insist), and DriftMethod wrote that there are problems with the source material I referenced because its not from official site of any racing organization. He is right and one of the few that discuss the topic with understanding.

Nice pics! But it still says nothing about which driver has the right to the apex, who must yield, how much space must be given, how those are determined for each apex, etc.

 

[ivann]

Nice pics! But it still says nothing about which driver has the right to the apex, who must yield, how much space must be given, how those are determined for each apex, etc.

Neither is it intended to say anything about which driver has the right to the apex, who must yield etc. I´m done with incident discussion.
This is purely about single corner vs multiple corners discussion.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

Not overly keen on joining in with this discussion, but anyone can find an image describing either scenario.

But, if it's "official" sources that mean anything, the Circuit Experience video calls the final section "a series of box shaped consecutive corners", calling the first left-hander "corner one" and the second left-hander "the final corner".

So, PD's track, PD's terminology, 2 corners.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

So with that Paint photo you disregard "one tracks private official website that for whatever reason decides to combine and number some of the corners on the track"?

Did not disregard the tracks official website and the track owner has the right to to number the corners however they want I guess.

What I did disregard that just because the track combines separate corners and uses a numbering system that counts two separate corners by physical definition as one does not change the actual fact that it is still actually 4 corners that have been numbered as two corners.

The paint photo was just to simplify for you and show the 3 physical characteristics that would define each individual corner as being a separate corner within itself.

To further simplify things so you may possibly be able to grasp, understand and comprehend is the reference to the lipstick on a pig at the end of the day is still a pig is in relation to regardless of how the track even on their official website numbers the 4 corners they list as 2 corners #6 and #11 by definition it is still actual 4 corners and not two regardless of what they call them.

Entrance-Apex-Exit = complete individual corner!

 

[DriftMethod]

Neither is it intended to say anything about which driver has the right to the apex, who must yield etc. I´m done with incident discussion.
This is purely about single corner vs multiple corners discussion.

I thought the single/multiple corner/apex was being used to discuss the incident. Numbers and names are just labels. No need to discuss further.

 

[ivann]

1)The paint photo was just to simplify for you and show the 3 physical characteristics that would define each individual corner as being a separate corner within itself.
2)Entrance-Apex-Exit = complete individual corner!

1) correct
2) correct, but
If first complete corner´s exit becomes second corner´s entrance (blended together), then alltogether it becomes a one single corner with 2 normal apexes and one overall apex.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

If first complete corner´s exit becomes second corner´s entrance (blended together), then alltogether it becomes a one single corner with 2 normal apexes and one overall apex.

In my opinion that would depend on whether you were trying to use the definition of a preferred racing line to determine blending for single or multiple corner definition. If so such description could very well introduce a confusion of what is an entrance or what is an apex or exit concerning sectors containing more than 1individual corner.

The reason I say that is basically although every sector of track has a preferred more efficient racing line every sector of track also has more than one racing line and the non preferred line would not blend the separated corners together with the same definition as the preferred line although it would still be a legitimate line to take through a tracks sector.

For that reason for the purpose of physically describing a tracks layout then to make the entire track surface feasible as a racing line and to have equal rights among the racing lines to attack or approach an individual corner then the actual physical attributes of a tracks sector should be the defining factor as that will not change with any line taken on the racing surface.

For use as describing the best possible racing line I can see using a description that would show tying the two corners together for racing efficiency as long as any physical description of the track itself still separated the corners by the physical attributes of the track itself.

I feel that this system of defining a track leaves a much more plain description which again even for a racing type of incident without question would have all competitors approaching the sector with the same sense of racing fair play and a solid knowledge of what and where all entrances-apexes and exits were for each corner through the sector.

 

[vvise]

Can we just concede the contact was a racing incident and leave it at that? I think we're past the point where any argument is going to change the others mind.

 

[ivann]

In my opinion that would depend on whether you were trying to use the definition of a preferred racing line to determine blending for single or multiple corner definition. If so such description could very well introduce a confusion of what is an entrance or what is an apex or exit concerning sectors containing more than 1individual corner.

The reason I say that is basically although every sector of track has a preferred more efficient racing line every sector of track also has more than one racing line and the non preferred line would not blend the separated corners together with the same definition as the preferred line although it would still be a legitimate line to take through a tracks sector.

For that reason for the purpose of physically describing a tracks layout then to make the entire track surface feasible as a racing line and to have equal rights among the racing lines to attack or approach an individual corner then the actual physical attributes of a tracks sector should be the defining factor as that will not change with any line taken on the racing surface.

For use as describing the best possible racing line I can see using a description that would show tying the two corners together for racing efficiency as long as any physical description of the track itself still separated the corners by the physical attributes of the track itself.

I feel that this system of defining a track leaves a much more plain description which again even for a racing type of incident without question would have all competitors approaching the sector with the same sense of racing fair play and a solid knowledge of what and where all entrances-apexes and exits were for each corner through the sector.

Lets just state facts (including not being possible to be at 2 different places at the same time) and not involve best possible racing line.
We both agree on definition of a complete individual corner: entry - apex - exit.
If 2 corners are too close to each other and both are the same direction (for example Garage Vert),
1st complete individual corner´s exit is replaced by 2nd corner´s entrance, and by so it doesnt have exit anymore and doesnt satisfy the definition of complete individual corner.
In other words, if 2nd corner entrance is replaced by 1st corner exit, it doesnt have entrance anymore and doesnt satisfy the definition of complete individual corner.
It cant get simpler than this, and you are right saying it can be confusing for someone.

 

[suprajef]

Can we just concede the contact was a racing incident and leave it at that? I think we're past the point where any argument is going to change the others mind.

Agreed

 

[Alpha Cipher]

Slightly off-topic but, do any of the 60000+ DR drivers want to do some private lobby racing this weekend and between the breaks of the two seasons?

I just got dipped out of 60k, do I still count

 

[FPV MIC]

Lets just state facts (including not being possible to be at 2 different places at the same time) and not involve best possible racing line.
We both agree on definition of a complete individual corner: entry - apex - exit.
If 2 corners are too close to each other and both are the same direction (for example Garage Vert),
1st complete individual corner´s exit is replaced by 2nd corner´s entrance, and by so it doesnt have exit anymore and doesnt satisfy the definition of complete individual corner.
In other words, if 2nd corner entrance is replaced by 1st corner exit, it doesnt have entrance anymore and doesnt satisfy the definition of complete individual corner.
It cant get simpler than this, and you are right saying it can be confusing for someone.

There's also double apex corners, which is kind of what the DTG example is. Two legal examples of overtaking at the second apex (Southern Loop at Phillip Island)are in the videos below.

Edit: Watch from about the 1.20 mark on both




Make your own minds up fellas

 

[suprajef]

I just got dipped out of 60k, do I still count

Not with csa

 

[Alpha Cipher]

Not with csa

No CSA promise

 

[suprajef]

No CSA promise

No worries, it actually is slower

 

[VFOURMAX1]

We both agree on definition of a complete individual corner: entry - apex - exit.

It cant get simpler than this, and you are right saying it can be confusing for someone.

This is my last words on this topic of conversation.

As we agree on the definition of a complete corner. Entrance-Apex-Exit= Complete Individual Corner

We also agree that using one definition here and a different definition over there for a corner of the track that shares the attributes that are the same as every other complete corner could easily be confusing and result in unneeded incidents as a result of individual racers confusion on what is where.

So why would you want to muddy the water and not make all corners across all circuits that meet the definition of being an individual complete corner the exact same and therefore subject to the exact same rules concerning responsibility and rights concerning attacking the corner, racing lines and right of way whether racing on circuit A, B, C or D. and regardless of the sector if the corner met the definition to classify it as an individual corner?

Does not make any sense to me to introduce the possibility of confusion to an issue by on some sectors using such a term or description such as blending and changing the definition of what constitutes a corner being a corner.

Such "blending" terminology does not offer the clarity of uniformity between circuits and sectors when the corners all actually meet the defining characteristics of being an individual corner so why use or introduce it at all?

The current definition of a individual corner has such clear defining attributes that determines what is and is not an individual corner what would possibly be a positive outcome by reducing such a uniform aspect of the racing circuit?

In my opinion the term individual corner has a very clear and concise description currently that leaves no question as to what the description entails.

For this reason in the interest of uniformity without confusion this should be the standard that all tracks operate under period.

 

[OutlawQuadrnt]

Hmmm. I wonder if there's a particular car I should drive for Nations.

 

[Auditore]

Hmmm. I wonder if there's a particular car I should drive for Nations.

View attachment 747396

The 458 obviously

 

[Alpha Cipher]

No worries, it actually is slower

Yeah. I'm slower right now than I was with CSA, but I think I'm slowly but surely getting to a level where I can surpass my CSA plebian self

 

[suprajef]

Hmmm. I wonder if there's a particular car I should drive for Nations.

View attachment 747396

Trophy fo sho!

 

[Mikail Hizal]

The only thing in your dictionary is ''Superior WRX Power''. XD

And superior cookie power probably xD