FIA's New 2012 Sporting Rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sach
  • 31 comments
  • 7,071 views
S

Sach

Messages
1,417
Afghanistan
Afghanistan
A Few Interesting Ones

Three days of testing mid-season added.

Drivers cannot move back onto the racing line once they move off of it to defend.

Lapped cars can rejoin as unlapped cars at the back of the field during safety car pitstops.
 
Last edited:
Sach_F1
Drivers cannot move back onto the racing line once they move off of it to defend.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, that should be fun for the stewards.

Prediction:
Hamilton - "These stewards, absolutely ridiculous. They don't know what a racing line is."
 
[The lawyer in me]
If I'm off the racing line, driver behind is DRSing to pass, then I move into the racing line to break the tow ... can I leave the racing line - to defend - again? :dopey:
[/the lawyer in me]
 
I don't like the sound of that, DRS makes racing artificial enough already.
 
Sach_F1
Lapped cars can rejoin as unlapped cars at the back of the field during safety car pitstops.
Click to expand...

Sounds like... HRT gets lapped.

"Oh I'll pit."

~Come's out of pits~

"Oh look, I'm back on lead lap."
 
- Cars may no longer take part in pre-season testing without having passed all crash tests.

- There will now be a maximum race time of four hours to ensure that a lengthy suspension of a race does not result in a race that could run up to eight hours if left unregulated.

- Before the safety car returns to the pits all lapped cars will be allowed to unlap themselves and then join the back of the pack, ensuring a clean re-start without slower cars impeding those racing for the leading positions.

- Cars which were in the pit lane when a race is suspended will now be allowed to re-join the cars on the grid in the position they were in when the race was suspended.

- Drivers may no longer leave the track without a justifiable reason, i.e. cutting a chicane on reconnaissance laps or ‘in’ laps to save time and fuel.


- Drivers may no longer move back onto the racing line having moved off it to defend a position.

- One three-day test will be carried out during the season, formerly there were none.

- All stewards’ decisions which are not subject to appeal are now in one place instead of being in various places within the regulations.

- All tyres allocated to a driver may now be used on the first day of practice; formerly only three sets were permitted.
 
Furinkazen
Sounds like... HRT gets lapped.

"Oh I'll pit."

~Come's out of pits~

"Oh look, I'm back on lead lap."
Click to expand...

It's only under safety cat though.

I think it's a very good and needed move, a lapped car shouldn't determine the outcome of a race unless they are being lapped under normal conditions(i.e. green).
 
So, when is it considered "moving onto the racing line" and when is it considered simply taking the corner?
Say we have La Source at Spa. A defending driver takes the inside line on the entry into the corner.
Inevitably the defending driver will "move onto the racing line" by hitting the apex. Obviously this isn't going to break the rule becuase common sense suggests its impossible to avoid this. But my point is this rule is no more clear than the "only 1 move to defend a corner" rule.

To be fair though, this whole issue is a very complex one to regulate. What is considered unfair blocking one corner may not be in another. The definition of who is defending and who is attacking is so fluid as well. Its almost impossible to apply "consistent" penalties as no incident is consistent in its events.
Shutting the door on an overtake at Eau Rouge is entirely different to shutting the door on an overtake in the Bus Stop.

I don't really have a good suggestion for this. I don't think an ambiguous rule really helps at all but a specific rule doesn't really work. But at the same time, blocking and overtaking needs to have some kind of clear regulation and stewarding applied to make it clear to the drivers what is considered acceptable driving.
 
By unlap I think they mean they can overtake the safety car and get around to the back of the line again, if they were 2 or 3 laps down it won't reset that completely.
 
Drivers may no longer move back onto the racing line having moved off it to defend a position.
Click to expand...

What the 👎 happened there? That is the worst rule ever to be made in racing history, even worse then DRS! Let me guess, in 2013 you can only race remote controlled, and in 2014 all cars are replaced with robots.
 
Tesla
I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...
People think it is artificial because it denies a driver the opportunity to take the proper racing line through a corner. They will naturally be slower through the corner, and therefore easier to pass.

What I find amusing is that the fans demanded more overtaking, and so the DRS was produced - but then everyone criticised it. Now this one-move-only rule has been introduced, and people are doing the same thing all over again. They'll still expect the Powers That Be to find a solution and make the races more exciting, but they won't give any ideas on how that could be achieved. Instead, they'll just keep shooting down the ideas produced by the FIA and the teams, and then turning around and expecting the FIA and the teams to read their minds on what they want.
 
RTSolvalou
By unlap I think they mean they can overtake the safety car and get around to the back of the line again, if they were 2 or 3 laps down it won't reset that completely.
Click to expand...

I did wonder about that. It would seem to sort of defeat the purpose of a safety car, you'll have probably ~6 cars still going around the track at near racing speeds trying to unlap themselves before the safety car comes in. That's not really that safe for the marshalls and whoever is trying to clear whatever caused the safety car.
 
prisonermonkeys
People think it is artificial because it denies a driver the opportunity to take the proper racing line through a corner. They will naturally be slower through the corner, and therefore easier to pass.

What I find amusing is that the fans demanded more overtaking, and so the DRS was produced - but then everyone criticised it. Now this one-move-only rule has been introduced, and people are doing the same thing all over again. They'll still expect the Powers That Be to find a solution and make the races more exciting, but they won't give any ideas on how that could be achieved. Instead, they'll just keep shooting down the ideas produced by the FIA and the teams, and then turning around and expecting the FIA and the teams to read their minds on what they want.
Click to expand...


I think it shows that people want to have their cake (exciting racing/defending), and eat it too (overtakes). They want to see action, but seeing defensive moves sort of cancels out seeing a lot of overtaking, now doesn't it?
 
The double DRS was a horrid idea. But just the one per race a decent feature.

How is the new single move rule different from what we already had?
 
RTSolvalou
The double DRS was a horrid idea.
Click to expand...
It wasn't that bad. It just wasn't implemented too well. It worked when it was placed at opposite ends of the circuit (like in Italy and India), but not when they were placed one after the other (like in Abu Dhabi and Valencia).

RTSolvalou
How is the new single move rule different from what we already had?
Click to expand...
The old rule states that a driver may make one move on the approach to a corner. He may then move back over to the racing line to take the corner. The new rule states that a driver may make one move on the approach to the corner ... and that's it. If he leaves the proper racing line, he cannot move back to it.
 
The 'no moving back to the racing line' rule is a little flawed. Some corners have multiple racing lines. Take turn 1 at Interlagos, Senna was given a penalty for causing a collision with Schumacher, despite the fact that there are two lines into the corner; an early turn in and apex to carry speed through the corner, or a late turn in and apex, to try and get the power on as early as possible. Senna was penalised for taking the second one, whereas Schumacher assumed he was taking the early apex line which resulted in him turning in on Senna who still gave space for Schumacher to take line 2.

The rule is already ambiguous enough as it is, this rule change will not work and will cause universal hatred for the stewards.
 
prisonermonkeys
What I find amusing is that the fans demanded more overtaking, and so the DRS was produced - but then everyone criticised it. Now this one-move-only rule has been introduced, and people are doing the same thing all over again. They'll still expect the Powers That Be to find a solution and make the races more exciting, but they won't give any ideas on how that could be achieved. Instead, they'll just keep shooting down the ideas produced by the FIA and the teams, and then turning around and expecting the FIA and the teams to read their minds on what they want.
Click to expand...

So everyone should just shut up and eat it? How amusing that people choose not to just take whatever is thought up as a fantastic idea. Perhaps you would prefer a legion of "yes" men?

People didn't want just more overtaking. They wanted more interest, more battles...they wanted close racing. Simply increasing a statistic of overtaking doesn't mean the racing is better or closer.

Just because people cannot think of the ideas themselves, it doesn't make the criticism any less valid and it doesn't mean the idea is the best.

I honestly can't understand why you are criticising the fans for not being happy. Asking for change doesn't automatically mean that we have to be happy with the changes made. It doesn't mean that when people aren't satisfied with the change, that they are impossible to please or ignorant.
I personally think a lot of the criticism of the DRS is pretty damn valid.

I would rather have the regulations of pre-2011, even if it meant we had more processional races, at least when there was action, it was more interesting. DRS is too predictable and suddenly changes the whole focus of the racing action to who can make use of the DRS zone best rather than who can drive the fastest and pull off a top overtake. Defending means almost nothing with DRS.

If anyone is to blame, the last people to blame are the fans....
 
Last edited:
The rules are fine as they are, it's just Red Bull have walked away with it. But this has happened a lot in the past couple of decades. Stabilising the regulations helps as over time it will close the field up, but there will still be an order that has correlation with investment within the team.

The DRS has worked well at some races this season. The FIA should take the information gathered throughout this season about it's effectiveness and forward that to next season, to refine it so to speak. I think it's main purpose was to allow overtaking on straights where the preceding corner naturally spreads the cars out, but on some circuits it was completely unnecessary (See: Turkey).

Punishing a driver for turning in on another when on the racing line (Like Massa in India) and not allowing a driver to defend without compromising their line into the corner (Even when there is space to move back over) is removing a driver's ability to defend more so than the DRS. But the two aspects combined will lead to overtakes happening everywhere regardless of relative speed between the two drivers and cars. The DRS is enough, and it even needs reigning in a little bit to allow for more exciting battles. Watching Hamilton try and get past Schumacher for 20 odd laps in Monza was great to watch. If Schumacher wasn't allowed to move back to the racing line Hamilton would have took him every lap on the exit to Ascari and Schumacher would have took it right back on the home straight.

A lot of problems were caused by drivers moving over in the braking zone for the stewards, causing lots of collisions. Maybe the point of this rule is to reduce collisions and reduce the number of controversial decisions the stewards will need to make. But I feel it will cause more problems for the stewards than it will prevent.
 
As many people seem to be saying, overtaking isn't the problem as such. It's more that the opportunity for interesting results is greatly diminished these days. It's entertaining to see drivers and cars placing outside of their expected range, whether it's high or low.

In the past, we had reliability throwing a spanner in the works, more errors from cars that were more difficult to drive quickly for long periods, more opportunities for retirements from crashes thanks to rules that were less strict on wheel to wheel racing, and tracks with greater penalties for mistakes thanks to a lack of tarmac runoff areas.

How different are races if you replace every tarmac runoff area with a massive gravel trap? Suddenly mistakes are a serious thing, and drivers either have to drive at 95% or drive at 110% and hope they get lucky and don't crash. What about rules allowing teams to tune their engines to breaking point if they so choose?

Admittedly, I think the Pirelli tyres were a step in the right direction, and I think they should take that idea and run with it. Make the differences between the tyres MASSIVE. Make supersofts like the old qualifying tyres or something. It'd make for at least one interesting season.

I don't think revising the rules regarding driving is going to do much, it's always going to be somewhat of a judgement call.
 
Last edited:
I like the changes. I'm in two minds about mid season testing though, even if its just 3 tests.
 
Ardius
So everyone should just shut up and eat it? How amusing that people choose not to just take whatever is thought up as a fantastic idea. Perhaps you would prefer a legion of "yes" men?

People didn't want just more overtaking. They wanted more interest, more battles...they wanted close racing. Simply increasing a statistic of overtaking doesn't mean the racing is better or closer.
Click to expand...
Then why don't they get together - at something like the FOTA fans forum - and actually become a part of the process? Instead of saying "No, we don't like your new rule changes", they could say "This is what we would like to see, and this is how we think you could do it". Because (to draw on my old analogy for this) right now, it's like they've gone to a bakery and ordered a cake. When they come back to collect the cake, they find that it is a fruit cake when they wanted a chocolate cake. But they never actually said they wanted a chocolate cake; they just ordered "a cake" and expected the baker to know what they were talking about. The baker did everything they asked, but it still wasn't good enough for them. They apparently expected the baker to know what they were talking about without actually telling them anything.

It's the same here: people want "closer racing", but they have never given any actual suggestion of how this could be achieved. Instead, they just expect the FIA and the teams to come up with a solution that they like, despite never telling them what they wanted.
 
Woohoo analogies.
I walk into an Italian Restaurant and order a Lasagne. I expect, with some reasonable logic, that they know how to make a good Lasagne. They proceed to serve a pile of crap on a plate. I point out that this is not what I expected and then the rest of the customers in the restaurant turn around and say "look, you ordered it, it looks fine to me, why don't you shut up and just eat it".

I do not expect the fans to know the ins and outs of what is required to make close racing. I do expect the FIA and FOTA to know. In fact, it has been brought up numerous times that the issue with these cars is the difficulty in following a car in front through corners due to the aerodynamic wake generated. So we all know a reasonable solution is to either remove aerodynamics or heavily restrict or limit them so they do not affect the wake or are not so susceptible to wake (such as using ground effects - which do not rely on the air in front as much).

It was in fact brought up in the FOTA fan forum I personally attended in London last year. But even there, there was some disagreement as to what the real solution was. Frank Dernie was present and said that he had never seen any data that suggested mechanical grip results in more overtaking. There was also discussion about the worry of artificial overtaking due to the DRS rules even back then. Whitmarsh actually stated they should recognise if they get it wrong and take a step back.

I think most people were happy with the suggestion of reverting to ground-effects cars. Problem was the teams weren't happy as they had little to no current understanding of ground-effects and were worried of the potential expense of getting it wrong. To them, DRS is a much cheaper solution. As ever, money is always a consideration.

DRS is a half-hearted solution to a problem that still exists. DRS is even still affected by the problems with cars following each other, as they struggle to remain close enough to even take advantage from DRS. Look at DRS in Melbourne this year. The cars struggled to stay close enough to each other in the final corner and the first corner, making any advantage gained almost meaningless.
The solution isn't to make DRS stronger or place it somewhere else. Not only does this still not solve the original problem, but it doesn't contribute anything. Does anyone get excited by a DRS-created overtake?
 
Ardius
I walk into an Italian Restaurant and order a Lasagne. I expect, with some reasonable logic, that they know how to make a good Lasagne. They proceed to serve a pile of crap on a plate. I point out that this is not what I expected and then the rest of the customers in the restaurant turn around and say "look, you ordered it, it looks fine to me, why don't you shut up and just eat it".
Click to expand...
Except that's not what is happening in Formula 1 at all.
 
In your opinion its not. In mine it is, though both analogies are worthless (as all analogies inevitably are) because its far more complicated than that....which was my point. Giving an analogy is just re-explaining your view. Its pretty clear what your view already is, you aren't proving anything.
The teams and the FIA are not only there just for the fans.
 
Ardius
The teams and the FIA are not only there just for the fans.
Click to expand...
Well, no, they're not - but don't you think it would be a little bit more constructive for fans to get involved before rule changes are introduced, rather than after the fact?
 
Sounds to me you should be complaining that the FIA and FOTA/the teams are not providing the opportunities for the fans to do just that. Rather than complaining that the fans only moan and don't suggest anything useful.

In any case, its never going to be the case that the FIA write the regulations with the fans' view first in their mind. And I don't think for one second that the teams put the fans' interests before their own.
 
Ardius
DRS is a half-hearted solution to a problem that still exists. DRS is even still affected by the problems with cars following each other, as they struggle to remain close enough to even take advantage from DRS. Look at DRS in Melbourne this year. The cars struggled to stay close enough to each other in the final corner and the first corner, making any advantage gained almost meaningless.
The solution isn't to make DRS stronger or place it somewhere else. Not only does this still not solve the original problem, but it doesn't contribute anything. Does anyone get excited by a DRS-created overtake?
Click to expand...

To be fair, the DRS enables cars to remain close behind in instances such as this. This means that the driver is in a position to overtake in other parts of the track. A lot of the Pirelli overtakes we have seen may have been a result of the DRS closing the drivers up after a corner and a straight which usually seperates them for the rest of the lap.

That is of course, just speculation as I do not believe for one moment that the Pirelli tyres didn't have an effect. But I do believe that even when the DRS didn't directly create any overtakes, it allowed the cars to run closer and maybe created overtaking opportunities in the corners following the DRS zone. Take Abu Dhabi as an example, we saw battles and overtakes between various drivers on the corners following the second DRS zone. Whilst the overtakes themselves were superficial, it did close the cars up allowing some wheel to wheel driving in the corners. We also saw the same in Korea between Hamilton and Webber.

And we know how close Schumacher got to Perez at Singapore, the DRS contributed to that, he wouldn't have been anywhere near otherwise.

The DRS has been a mixed success. I'm not sure that further things can be done to improve the racing aside from changing the aerodynamic characteristics of the cars, but the teams are unwilling to support such a change for various reasons. For many team members it means their jobs could be at stake.
 
Ardius
Sounds to me you should be complaining that the FIA and FOTA/the teams are not providing the opportunities for the fans to do just that. Rather than complaining that the fans only moan and don't suggest anything useful.
Click to expand...
If the FIA and the teams are not providing opportunities, what's stopping fans from taking the initiative? Otherwise, they're like my Year 7 students - they give up the moment they don't know the answer, and then complain that the questions are too hard.
 
Back