Last year’s British GP shows how difficult winning every race is – Horner

33 comments on “Last year’s British GP shows how difficult winning every race is – Horner”

1. 

   EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
   5th July 2023, 1:18

   No way should #F1 go back to the pre-2022 track limits rules which varied between corners and even between sessions (https://racefans.net/2021/03/26/different-track-limits-rules-for-qualifying-and-race-in-bahrain/).

   Coudn’t agree more. Track limits is a clear cut rule, and clear cut rules are what the fanbase constantly cries out for. Of course there were plenty of races without the current rule and equally without controversly, but when track limits issues did arise it was often accompanied by debate and subjective opinion. The current rule eliminates this, and like Keith says, what needs to change are the mechanisms that assist drivers in complying with the rule, not the rule itself.
   1. 

      EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
      5th July 2023, 1:28

      Just as a further thought (though admittedly not thought through in detail), I see no reason why the white line could not be placed with or outside of the kerbs in some corners, if such a change did not represent a significant ‘gain’ for the drivers – though being the same for all drivers, it really doesnt matter if it provides a gain or not. I am not aware of any rule that determines where the kerb is in relation to the track limits.

      I’d go further and say that, in some areas, the white line could be placed significantly beyond it’s current location if said location was the source of multiple infringements but such a change would not negatively impact the race. I realise that this may look like it undermines the intent of track limits, but I don’t think it does, as those areas where it is deemed essential that drivers should not run wide of the traditional limits would not be affected, and the hard and fast rule would remain.
      1. 

         GlennB
         5th July 2023, 1:46

         I hear what you are saying but I believe that if you moved the line 10m farther out then the drivers would cross that line too if it was the fastest way through that corner. I would suggest a 100m cliff be placed 1 car width plus 10cm outside the current white line… Quite the deterrent.
         1. 

            Jere (@jerejj)
            5th July 2023, 6:00

            GlennB – If indeed, but mostly, not really because the wider a car would go, eventually, that extra distance would only increase lap time & or slow down acceleration speed.
            @markzastrow – While I don’t know any better either, I doubt merely switching a white line to the other side of a curbing would necessarily require runoff area or barrier redesigning, given how vast runoff areas are in most places.
            1. 

               Coventry Climax
               5th July 2023, 13:03

               Consider an S sequence of corners.
               Then move the white lines a 100 metres back.
               You’ve created a straight.
            2. 

               EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
               6th July 2023, 0:53

               Coventry Climax

               This may be the case, however it is also ignoring my original premise that this is done where appropritte. What you have done here is highlight an innapropriate application of the idea.
      2. 

         Mark Zastrow (@markzastrow)
         5th July 2023, 1:57

         @cairnsfella I very much agree with this — some great points.

         There is in fact a rule that prevents this — the definition of the extent of the track in the sporting regulations explicitly excludes kerbs — but that could be changed:

         Drivers will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with it and, for the avoidance of doubt, any white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not.

         The tracks would also have to be re-homologated according to the new placement of the white lines. Without knowing the exact calculations that the FIA uses to determine this, it’s hard to know whether the white lines could be redrawn without redesigning barriers, runoff, etc., but it wouldn’t be surprising if there were some extra margin built into the design (especially considering it also has to meet FIM standards) that could be taken up by redrawing the line farther out.
   2. 

      S
      5th July 2023, 7:09

      what needs to change are the mechanisms that assist drivers in complying with the rule, not the rule itself.

      There already are mechanisms that assist drivers in complying with the rules, and they provide instant mechanical and auditory feedback to alert drivers to how close they are getting to the track limit.
      They are called kerbs.
      Even the white lines themselves are seen clearly prior to drivers reaching them – the drivers know exactly where they are. They just don’t think there’s enough of an incentive to stay within them.

      I am not aware of any rule that determines where the kerb is in relation to the track limits.

      References to kerbing being outside of the track appear in F1’s sporting regulations (Article 33) and other official FIA literature, including track design and certification guidelines which specify (explicitly) that kerbs are not part of the track – they are beyond track limits. Always and everywhere.

      I realise that this may look like it undermines the intent of track limits, but I don’t think it does

      But it actually does. Changing a rule simply because competitors don’t want to (or are unable to) obey it is absolutely undermining the intent of the rule.
      Racing circuits, by design, are intended to be challenging to drive and to test the skills of the participant.
      1. 

         Mark Zastrow (@markzastrow)
         5th July 2023, 14:14

         Racing circuits, by design, are intended to be challenging to drive and to test the skills of the participant.

         They just don’t think there’s enough of an incentive to stay within them.

         If the drivers don’t think there’s much incentive to stay within the designed track, that’s not a well-designed track.
      2. 

         EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
         6th July 2023, 0:57

         S

         Unsure you have understood my point as you state

         Changing a rule simply because competitors don’t want to (or are unable to) obey it is absolutely undermining the intent of the rule.

         However I have specifically proposed a solution that ‘does not’ change the rule. It merely changes to location of an element to which the rules apply.
         1. 

            S
            6th July 2023, 4:06

            I totally understood.
            Changing where the rule is enacted for such petty reasoning as this is essentially equivalent to changing the rule itself.
            You’re correct – the wording of the rule itself doesn’t change, but it’s application does and it totally changes the character of the circuit and the events held on it.

            The intent of the rule is stay within the track as presented. Not to change the track when the rule is ignored.
2. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   5th July 2023, 5:56

   Anything can indeed happen to end the ongoing winning streak & I think something will at some point further into the season to prevent a full sweep.

   Given how often I’ve heard or read 200 mph in F1 over the years, I think that figure is like an F1 thing, meaning sometimes even individuals wholly accustomed to km/h might say that instead of 322 km/h.
   However, both are spot-on about protesting in a high-speed event, so hopefully, nothing similar will happen.

   Nice gestures by MP & Mercedes.

   Keith’s tweet couldn’t be more right. While I initially thought this all-in approach was redundant because not everywhere can an off-track excursion be faster than staying on track, but overall, having full consistency is better than changing from track to track or even during the same event.

   Continuing on the same topic, rumble strip lines, as suggested in the COTD, could be a viable physical deterrent alternative.
3. 

   AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse)
   5th July 2023, 7:38

   Interesting how Horner acknowledges that bad luck could end their winning run, but no mention of their competitors actually beating them.
   1. 

      baasbas
      5th July 2023, 8:58

      @adrianmorse
      Yes he needs to up his game, he is slacking
   2. 

      Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
      5th July 2023, 8:59

      Well, did you see how far ahead Red Bull Racing was last weekend?
   3. 

      MichaelN
      5th July 2023, 9:47

      The way they are now, not even the allegedly big penalty to their aero testing will bring the other teams close enough for a credible challenge. A rare but welcome moment of honesty from Horner.
      1. 

         Coventry Climax
         5th July 2023, 13:21

         alledgedly big penalty? What’s alledgedly about it? It’s set by the rules and rulemakers (not that I value them highly) and all teams agreed.
         credible challenge? What’s making the challenge incredible now? The sour truth that other teams have come up -again- with cars not up to the task? That’s happened before, and will happen again, that is, until the FIA succeeds in their quest to cut off every head that sticks out even slightly above the others. And kill F1 in the process, by the way.
         rare but welcome moment of honesty? Are you willing to take the man to court to have your claims of his general dishonesty sought out and verified? Until then, an opinion is OK, but a judgement isn’t.

         Your comment is polarising twitter talk, like it’s coming from a silmilar sized bird brain. (Although I’m certain a lot of birds make more sense that the mess you read on twitter.) I was tempted to click ‘report’, and you may click that for mine here, but I prefer to say this directly to you. I likely won’t respond further.
         1. 

            Esploratore (@esploratore1)
            5th July 2023, 23:25

            I also don’t always consider horner dishonest, but that seems like a minor reason to report, I’ve seen worse. I’ve seen comments criticizing the iq of the poster they replied to on here, for example.
         2. 

            Esploratore (@esploratore1)
            5th July 2023, 23:26

            Or comments that had nothing to do with the topic, simply picking on a person for replying early, posting memes, stuff like that.
         3. 

            SteveP
            6th July 2023, 7:50

            alledgedly big penalty? What’s alledgedly about it?

            I think that was a reference to “allegedly big” rather than “alleged penalty”

            Bit lengthy, but it does need explaining:

            Yes, there is no doubt that there was a reduction of aero time, but CH made a sizeable song and dance about how big the penalty was, when in fact most of the ground effect aero was done during the expensive sandwich period of 2021.
            RBR turned up in 2022 with a well-developed aero package on a heavy car. Nothing in the “big penalty” stopped them from moving the in-cap expenditure to developments that reduced the weight, which was already in their plans – look back at articles from 2022, and you will see the regular mention of them needing to make the car lighter.

            There was no financial penalty on the development – none, zip, zero. The “big fine” CH whinged about never touched the RBR cost-cap books, not one penny – all paid by Red Bull GmbH

            Back to the aero penalty: 10% – not of the standard 240 hours, but rather 10% of the 70% they had as a result of winning in 2022 (using lots of expensive sandwiches)
            With a properly applied penalty, the aero time would have been 60% of 240 rather than the actual applied version of 63% of 240

            So, there you go – a financial penalty, that wasn’t at all and an aero penalty that was 3% less than it ought to have been in any logical system, but didn’t really matter because they did the largest part of their aero development before any restriction and they were needing to spend their in-cap money on non-aero development anyway.
4. 

   StephenH
   5th July 2023, 13:12

   Suzie Wolff for PM.
   1. 

      Coventry Climax
      5th July 2023, 13:24

      With Toto pulling her strings? No thank you.
      1. 

         SteveP
         6th July 2023, 7:54

         With Toto pulling her strings?

         ROFL.
         Given a choice between crossing Suzie or a Rottweiler – I think most people would recommend the rotty :)
   2. 

      Coventry Climax
      5th July 2023, 13:31

      On second thought, what country are you referring to? For a lot of countries even that would be a huge improvement. Russia, China, Belarus, Israel, North Korea, Myanmar are some that easily come to mind.
      Not really decided on England yet, although the idea of exporting immigrants (any clever crate designer that’s come forward yet? Oh wait, Ryan Air ofcourse) does not tip the scale towards the current PM’s favour.
      1. 

         SteveP
         6th July 2023, 7:58

         Not really decided on England yet, although the idea of exporting immigrants (any clever crate designer that’s come forward yet? Oh wait, Ryan Air ofcourse) does not tip the scale towards the current PM’s favour.

         I think mentioning that shower is skirting with the edge of Godwin’s Law.
         I will forgive, this once, provided you donate something toxic to them. :)
5. 

   Coventry Climax
   5th July 2023, 13:54

   With the white lines designated as the track’s limits by design, it’s rather silly they’re even allowed to go over it with a single wheel already, let alone two. The FIA should start by looking up the definition of the word ‘limit’.
   Always a wise choice, I’d say, to have a clear understanding of the actual words you’ll be using when creating a rule set. Saves nonsense speak like ‘the ultimate limit’. And discussions about it.
   Another wise choice and sensible thing to do, to me at least, is to make sure you have the means to transparently judge your own rules being followed or not, and have the means to act accordingly. They’d just be hollow threats otherwise. So, -and again my opinion- : Either come up with an automated system and/or put camera’s, overhead and inside, of EVERY corner. Oh, and then broadcast the undeniable proof when handing out penalties, instead of deciding on such things behind closed doors and after lengthy discussions between ‘experts’.
   Too much? Then don’t come up with such rules in the first place – unless you’ve fooled everyone and your primary goal is to maximise controversy.
   1. 

      SteveP
      6th July 2023, 8:04

      With the white lines designated as the track’s limits by design, it’s rather silly they’re even allowed to go over it with a single wheel already, let alone two.

      True, good point.
      If you made touching the line a breach, then simple pressure sensors could monitor contact, with the existing GPS monitoring who was at the corner. Notification to the driver should be immediate, or nearly so.
6. 

   grat
   5th July 2023, 15:28

   Or, perhaps, the Red Bull Ring is just unsuited to modern F1 cars– they’re big, they’re heavy, it’s difficult to see the white lines from the cockpit, and they have massive amounts of horsepower relative to braking.

   I can’t think of any other track where track limits are such an issue. Zandvoort, Hungaroring and Interlagos are all short, twisty tracks, but track limits are rarely an issue at those courses.

   We can certainly continue to abuse the drivers and their cars, and then complain that damage plays such a large role in the outcome of the race, but maybe, just maybe, there should be an investigation into why there were hundreds of track limits violations in the first place?
   1. 

      S
      5th July 2023, 16:15

      Or, perhaps, the Red Bull Ring is just unsuited to modern F1 cars

      There are very few tracks left in the world suitable for these cars. But that isn’t the fault of the tracks.
      The cars were exactly the same in the wet as they were in the dry, and there were hardly any track limits breaches by comparison…. How did that happen? I guess they know where the limits are after all…?

      I can’t think of any other track where track limits are such an issue.

      I can think of several, but they often aren’t treated with this extreme level of indifference (or contempt) by the drivers.
      Brazil does have Turns 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the pit entrance as track limits ‘weaknesses’.
      Hungary has Turns 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
      There are corners at almost every circuit F1 visits that are ripe for exploiting if the FIA allow them to.

      maybe, just maybe, there should be an investigation into why there were hundreds of track limits violations in the first place?

      You mean it isn’t clear to you? Seriously?
      1. 

         Mark Zastrow (@markzastrow)
         5th July 2023, 17:07

         The cars were exactly the same in the wet as they were in the dry, and there were hardly any track limits breaches by comparison…. How did that happen?

         Because wet kerbs cause loss of traction, which allows the drivers to feel their limits much more than a white line — just like gravel or grass. This contradicts, rather than supports, your argument that no physical deterrent is needed if the drivers are not to treat the track limits with “indifference”.
      2. 

         grat
         5th July 2023, 20:08

         OK– so why are these totally clueless, indifferent, incapable drivers not racking up track limits penalties at these other tracks?

         Why is it only a problem at the Red Bull Ring?
         1. 

            S
            6th July 2023, 4:25

            You’ll have to ask the drivers why they chose to ignore the track limit on so many occasions at this track. The risk of a 5 second time penalty wasn’t a sufficient deterrent, apparently.
            They know perfectly well how to stay between the lines, they just chose not to sacrifice a few milliseconds of lap time to ensure they did so.
            That has nothing at all to do with track design – and it is not specific to Austria. They absolutely do get track limits warnings and penalties at other circuits, but drivers tend not to ignore the consequences on such comical and embarrassing scale.

            F1 does this sort of thing at times. Things get out of hand occasionally, a few days later everyone realises what actually happened and how it looked, say they’ll learn from it, and then it all reverts to normality again.
            Repeat in a year or two with the same or possibly a different aspect. Track limits, traffic in qualifying, driving too slowly and ignoring maximum lap times…. The list goes on.
7. 

   S
   5th July 2023, 17:30

   The kerbs didn’t go away when the track dried, nor did the white lines become invisible. They were still there, providing the exact same sensory information and feedback.
   If a driver can’t feel when two wheels are on a serrated kerb and can’t see such contrasting white lines on a dark surface, they are in the wrong line of work.
   Someone, suspend their super licence immediately.

Comments are closed.