When Binotto last week said he was all for transparency, I had to chuckle.
Wearing a mask must’ve made it easier for him to keep a straight face.
re: Racing Point. The issue is whether you want Formula 1 to be a you design your own parts sort of a series or a spec series. The rules were changed this year to prevent just buying the rear brake duct and sticking it into your car (which is where the issue came from). It’s small and somewhatticky-tack, but I can see where the McLarens and Renaults are a bit pissed about it.
As with many of these things… I’m pretty sure FIA was consulted a lot during the off season, and didn’t see much problems then. Now that it turns out last year’s Mercedes is still the second or third best car on the grid… it suddenly becomes an issue. To be clear, it should have been an issue all along. Haas buys a lot of parts from Ferrari, but they never copied the exact same car.
I think FIA played a similar role when Mercedes created the DAS system and probably even last year with ferrari and their engine shenanigans. While the teams are developing it seems fine, but the end result turns out to be something they don’t really like.
I will note that there were many comments and some complaints about RP making a 19 Marc before the season. I even remember it before they cancelled Australia.
Racing Point are specifically in trouble for the rear brake duct design.
In short:
Back in 2018, when it was legal to share brake ducts, Mercedes gave (or sold) Racing Point the CAD files for their (Mercedes own design) brake ducts. During 2019 the Racing Point chassis was relatively original to Racing Point and they decided only the front Mercedes brake ducts would work with it and so only used them. The rear ducts on the 2019 Racing Point were original.
For the 2020 season sharing brake ducts is now banned. Note one F1 designer has suggested that typically 20% of aero testing time concentrates on brake ducts. So they are a big thing.
Since I promised the short version: Racing Point (despite repeatedly claiming they copied the 2019 Mercedes from photographs) actually returned to the CAD files and, now using a chassis which in it’s entirety looks just like a 2019 Mercedes, fitted both front and rear brake ducts. Note the thing here is the internal design of the ducts. The parts which would never show in a photograph…
The FIA ruled the front ducts are legal to use because they were ‘grandfathered’ in from the 2019 Racing Point car. But since Racing Point had never previously used the rear ducts they were deemed illegal.
However although the FIA fined and docked Racing Point championship points for the first race they used them (and that Renault complained about them) they are allowing them to continue using them in all subsequent races without further punishment. Even though each race Renault complain and each time the FIA confirm they are illegal.
There are further issues which have been proven. For example for Pre-Season testing this year Mercedes actually delivered some complete brake duct assemblies to Racing Point apparently believing it wasn’t illegally sharing parts if they were only used for testing. (In the end they were supposedly never used.)
There are further issues which have been alleged but not proven. Basically some people simply don’t believe Racing Point could have built a chassis so similar to the 2019 Mercedes merely from photographs. In the last few days a specific accusation has been made Mercedes supplied Wind Tunnel models and full size display models of their cars to Racing Point.
These further accusations would not only see Racing Point in more trouble but would also see Mercedes themselves liable for punishments. If proven.
TCMF-2L
It’s not wrong if Mercedes does it.
You’ve mis-spelled “Ferrari”
Have to say that Ferrari seem to have ran an illegal car throughout the whole of last season which, judging by the amount they’ve dropped back this year, must have been providing a significant advantage. But we don’t know the details because the FIA and Ferrari have kept it secret.
Bernie Ecclestone used to say that there is no F1 without Ferrari and Ferrari have previously threatened to pull out the sport in order to get their way on certain planned changes. I’m not sure how the FIA regards or treats Ferrari now but I’m assuming it’s still in high esteem.
Too bad they couldn’t prove anything.
I haven’t seen it confirmed yet but I have read one source that says Ferrari will keep their unique right to veto under the new Concorde Agreement which starts next year. Confirmation might never arrive since the Concorde is always secret. However all ten existing teams have signed it.
TCMF-2L
It is being reported Renault are withdrawing their appeal against Racing Point. They say they only ever wanted clarity about how much copying is legal and the FIA will be tidying up the rules… So no need to continue the legal process.
This explanation rings a bit untrue since previously Renault suggested they wanted Racing Point to lose all championship points earned while using the illegal rear ducts plus they indicated they had concerns about the involvement of Mercedes.
So possibly the FIA have made clear to Renault this is a matter which is damaging the sport so they better shut up?
Meanwhile Ferrari haven’t withdrawn their appeal yet so for now the matter isn’t over.
TCMF-2L
I was watching the race at Spa last night, and it reminded me of a question I’ve always meant to ask. Maybe someone here will know.
Is there any way to keep the cars on the actual track?
I understand why they put some extra asphalt at the apex of a corner, and to give a bit of runoff room at the corner exit. Without those, there’d be no margin for error; put one wheel wrong and it’ll be in the grass with no traction at all. Don’t want a six-inch mistake to end someone’s race, so we’ll give them a little bit of a buffer where they need it the most.
And I understand why the drivers wind up using that buffer. If the fastest way around a track is cross over the kerbing at the apex and use all of the runoff, of course that’s what the drivers are going to do. They start using all the runoff, start getting close to the edge, and so they need a little more runoff next year. How much wider, where it counts, is the Spa of today than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Why even bother painting a white line along the track; why pretend that the limit is really the limit?
So my question is, is there anything that the track builders could put at the edge of the track that would deter the drivers from using it, but not be so severe that it would take them out of the race? Maybe the runoff area could slope away from the track, or put grooves in it so the contact patch is reduced. Make the kerb at the apex severe enough that it pitches the car off the racing line a bit.
What things have been tried, and do any of them work?
Some tracks have extremely high kerbs which can damage or slow the cars. The Red Bull Ring had these high yellow kerbs but they caused expensive damage to the cars when they accidentally ran wide so a lot of teams asked for them to be removed.
But they do delete times and penalise drivers who go off track and gain an advantage. In the race there’s the three strike rule but you will have your lap time deleted in any session which is a big problem if it happens in qualifying.
The issue with older tracks like Spa is that they are old tracks designed for cars from a different era and the circuits are arguably a bit too small for these cars. The kerbs effectively widen the track and the outside of the kerbs become the new white lines.
What counts as “off track”, though? In the race last night, I saw cars routinely putting all four tires on the red-and-yellow runoff areas. And there are always allegations of favoritism in F1, so it’s be nice to have a solution that wasn’t dependent on the mood of the stewards.
How is Spa too small for these cars? Without the huge runoffs, the track would be effectively narrower, but the cars would still fit on it. They’d just have to go slower around the corners.
All four wheels simultaneously beyond the edge of the kerb.
But the track limits rules have been a big controversy. It does seem to have been policed differently on different tracks and you only seem to get penalised if you go off on a corner where you might gain an advantage rather making it like a line call where if you’re off you’re off.
What I think they are trying to avoid is making each race ridiculously complicated where multiple drivers are penalised multiple times all with varying time penalties - because that would mean the order on the track would not be the order of the race and the whole thing would become farcical. The alternative to this would be to make drivers serve a drive through penalty for each infraction but that would be a disproportionally large penalty.
I agree through it’s not very clear. They should paint the white line on the outside of the kerb to make it clearer to viewers although I suppose the regulations change for each type of race held on a particular track.
You’re right, but you want to create enough space for cars to be able pass each other and these F1 cars are relatively wide. You can’t go off track when overtaking otherwise you have to hand the place back. So if the track isn’t wide enough you end up with a track where nobody can pass each other. We already have the street circuits like Monaco for processional racing where passing is almost impossible.
Expanding on previous comments:
All methods of setting track limits have their own characteristics. The basic desire is drivers should not exceed track limits so need to pay a price for doing so but the sport wants to avoid punishing transgressions too harshly and particularly wants to avoid ruining races or creating safety issues.
Solid walls and metal barriers. These are still used at street circuits such as Monaco and Canada. The good characteristic is they punish a driver who gets it wrong (and hits the wall.) The bad news is fans dislike ‘their’ driver going out the race for a minor error. That counts double if ‘their’ driver is an innocent victim who was pushed into a wall.
Because impacting a wall is so violent drivers can be hurt (bad for the sport), cars or car parts can be thrown out of control into other cars or worse still into the crowd (bad for the sport) and debris left from an impact usually means a Safety Car period which is generally considered undesirable for the sport.
Grass run off areas. With the best will in the world these require a lot of space which isn’t always available. But generally it is felt F1 cars get little to no grip on grass (wet or dry.) If a car gets it totally wrong and goes fully onto grass at high speed it cannot brake at all meaning it will almost inevitably hit the crash barriers at a high, unreduced, speed. Too dangerous.
So while grass does punish those who exceed the track limits it is too dangerous.
Gravel traps. This used to be popular but no longer. A wet gravel trap tends to act like grass - the car continues at high speed as an out of control missile.
A dry gravel trap is better. A single wheel in the gravel tends to destabilise a car but not necessarily put it totally out of control. So punishes a driver but not too much. However when a car goes totally into the gravel things get random. Sometimes a car can easily drive across the top of the gravel cutting a corner and actually getting an advantage. Sometimes they can slowly drive out of the gravel - wastes a lot of time which is good, punishes the driver.
However often a car will get stuck in the gravel which is dangerous. Basically because another car going out of control at the same spot will hit it. Making it worse a stuck car cannot usually be pushed out by marshals and will require a crane or a tractor. F1 drivers have died when they have crashed and hit a tractor so that’s not popular. Plus you need a tractor or crane nearby or there will be delays…
That all said. If a car has gone completely out of control then a (dry) gravel trap will usually (but not always) rapidly slow it which is a safety bonus… But for a track that hosts bike racing as well as cars, bikes tend to ‘dig in’ to gravel and the rider gets “highsided” off.
Another issue is, if a car goes in and out of gravel then gravel tends to end up on the track making it as slippery as spilt oil. Gravel can be thrown on track by a car touching gravel or be scooped up by a car driving across it and deposited on track as that car rejoins the track. Plus if an actual lump of gravel is picked up by a tyre it can be fired like a bullet at a following driver.
Tarmac. Tarmac shares various characteristics with the other options. Firstly, like grass, it requires enough room. However the surface can be modified to provide different grip levels. The Paul Ricard track in France (the one with all the geometric red and blue stripes surrounding the racing track) specialises in this. The first part of the runoff Tarmac is blue which has normal to low grip to punish drivers. But the red zones, which are further away and only an out of control driver would drive over them, have extra grip to allow cars to slow rather than crash into a wall. As a bonus the red zones would scrape a layer of rubber off a locked, sliding tyre so increasing the tyre wear and hence the punishment.
However the problem with Tarmac is a driver can deliberately and routinely drive over it, exceeding the track limit, to gain a competitive advantage. Driving over Tarmac simply doesn’t inherently punish a driver the same way driving over grass or gravel would. So you can have kerbs fitted.
Kerbs. Tracks regularly try to increase the cost to a driver by putting up kerbs. Kerbs can be quite high, quite vertical and these would create a violent impact when driven over. Although this is usually less severe than an actual wall. Some drivers have reported back injuries after a race of riding the kerbs. However the main concern is during a race, repeatedly hitting a kerb can eventually lead to a sudden catastrophic failure with either the suspension collapsing or a tyre bursting. No one wants that. Too dangerous.
So kerbs can be lowered and smoothed. But it’s a balance: Can’t be too low or cars can drive over it with impunity.
Kerbs these days tend to be removable so they can be modified overnight. As with gravel they present a different safety issue with MotorCycles. Generally speaking they are mainly used at tight corners and chicanes.
Stewards. With or without kerbs these days F1 cars (and MotoGP bikes) are required to follow rules which are decided prior to the race and explained to the drivers and riders in the pre race briefings. They can change per track, per corner and during race weekends. They can be monitored visually or by track sensors.
Typically if an F1 driver exceeds track limits during qualifying that lap will be excluded. No judgement or allowances. The lap is automatically excluded. Same in MotoGP.
In F1 drivers are typically monitored on specific corners and in general driving, usually they are allowed to exceed the limits two or three times but then they get a warning and if they exceed limits again, even if there is no obvious benefit to them (they don’t need to have made an overtake), they will get a penalty.
A driver who gains specific advantage going off track (so making an overtake or defending against an overtake) will usually be required to give up the place immediately or if circumstances change (the other driver pits or crashes or whatever) the naughty driver gets a time penalty or a drive through penalty instead.
MotoGP (the F1 of bikes) recently tightened up on exceeding the track limits. Doing so on the first or last lap of a race is an automatic penalty unless the rider was forced off track. The penalty can be a time penalty or the ‘long lap’ penalty where a rider has to take a longer detour around the outside of a designated corner.
In a recent Moto2 race (that’s the junior class to MotoGP) the rider first over the line lost victory because he was judged to have exceeded the track limit on the final lap. Jorge Martin led the whole race last month in Austria but had Marco Bezzecchi right behind him on the final lap. Exceeded the track limit and it cost him the win. Some felt it was harsh… But that’s the new rule.
TCMF-2L
What a great post. Just one thing to add - I seem to remember a few years ago they tried plastic (?) bollards to mark out the track limits. I presume the idea was that if you hit one you risked (probably minor) car damage, but not so much as to be too harsh on punishing genuine mistakes. Anyone know why that didn’t work?
Bollards are still used. Usually deformable plastic - solid bollards would cause too much catastrophic damage.
Like everything they have pluses and minuses.
Deformable bollards tend not to damage the car so that’s good. They tend to keep drivers on the track which is good.
The problems are they can be too forgiving - You can harmlessly brush them every lap so they make reaching the limit easier for drivers. Also they can become dislodged after a hefty impact and a loose bollard rolling around on track is dangerous.
That applies when bollards are used on corners or chicanes on the actual track.
At some circuits, they have “escape roads” - At some corners there is a known risk of drivers getting it so wrong they will fail to make the corner. In this case there is an escape road which will lead the driver back onto the track. However it is usually a short cut. In order to make it impossible for drivers - even accidentally - to gain an advantage they usually have large - but soft - blocks and bollards which force a driver to slow right down and negotiate a longer and slower path back to the track.
TCMF-2L
They stopped using the plastic bollards because a marshal was hit by one during a GP2 race. I forget where and when.