Whos fault is it?

@martcerv You're going into details for each case which is fine, but in your way of viewing things, which I think is too apologetic. Abviously you don't have to go to the extreme to crash into people but inventing 100 rules and policing that they are applied is not the way to compete. Have a few basic rules and let the best win. I think we disagree in principle here so it makes no sense to continue.

@RedLoto, martcerv: if you had the chance to complete in F1 you would now be Brundle: 158 starts 0 wins.

 

Braking point turn 1:


Around the 150m marker, going up hill @317km.

Barking point turn 2:

Around 175-200m on what look like a less of an incline @316km.

But looking at this:

It may be more incline (Turn 1 furthest away, turn 2 far right. Taken from reddit).

I wouldn't call that late braking.

Matt.

 

Maybe you would be like Pastor Crashdonado. I think using a basic rule of leaving racing room to overlaped cars is fairly easy to understand and also quite fair so simply never force another driver off the track and whoever does is at fault. Also I think if your crashing then your not winning but maybe one day we can have a race and see who ends up on top.

The one last thing I will add is Im not saying your not meant to pass your just meant to do it cleanly. I can pass people cleanly and quite often so the issue isnt passing its doing it without driving others off the road and avoiding contact.

Here is lap 1 of 1 of our reverse grid seasons and see how many I pass in 1 lap, how close we are and this is with no contact between me and anyone.



Or another full race from the same series.



Full race again reverse grid different cars.

 

Isn't there a simple rule that the one car which turns first into the corner "owns" the corner, or is this a myth?
So the other car would have to brake to avoid contact or use another line to overtake in a counterattack-maneuver... Right?

 

Or maybe Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda, Jim Clark, Alain Prost....

 

This is really where most race categories have different rules, some will say there must be significant overlap and there it will be defined as how much car you must have overlapping before the car needs to leave racing room. Some like v8 supercars have a basic rule of any car with any overlap you must leave racing room at all times. This is a better rule to go by for general friendly racing but for something more serious then the half car or similar rule is used. The problem with defining a part of the car there is always a grey area and when contact is made they will assign blame to whichever car is clearly not within that point and if its a close call will call it a racing incident. Having the grey area though means its more likely to have contact if both drivers see the amount of overlap differently, the any overlap rule is generally the fairest and if contact is made then fault is always to the one that didn't leave racing room and moved into the room they should have left for the other car.

This is the rule that people like Shumacher and Senna would exploit and push to the limits with either very late dives or shutting the door when its very marginal, pretty much forcing the other driver to take evasive action or have contact and this is seen as over aggressive and dirty by many. These drivers do this more to show dominance and if anyone ever did it to them they would be the first to complain. Me in sims I will give racing room to anyone overlapped but hang in there inside or out if I can so I wont conceded a spot or do the traditional dive bomb/block pass, but if there is someone I know that habitually wont give racing room and is a constant door closer I will give them the absolute minimum amount of room and at times put them in the concede or crash position they do to everyone else all the time.

 

No, there is no rule about 'owning' a corner, necessarily. At least not when talking about two cars alongside each other. Just about when a driver has a right to room. The driver on the inside into a braking zone has a natural advantage of being able to turn-in while kind of 'naturally' blocking the driver on the outside from taking the corner as quickly as they'd like. And the driver on the inside will also often have the ability to get on the power earlier in time due to being ahead at that point. That said, if the driver on the outside times it right, and turns-in a bit later while the inside driver clears off the apex, they can get a clear run to the apex themselves and get a less-compromised exit to try and overtake before the next corner. Basically the old 'over->under'.

Most anytime there are two cars that are completely side-by-side heading into a corner, nobody 'owns' anything. The drivers exist in a mutual state of 'earned room', basically. However, if the car on the inside, using the advantages I noted above, heads into the corner and the apex and the car on the outside is *no longer* alongside, then the 'right to room' has gone and it is their imperative to back off and not try and fit into a closing gap. If all you have is your front wing alongside a competitor, that is not enough(unless we're talking on a straight). And this usually goes for heading into a corner as well. If you're on the inside, but all you've got is your front wing/tires alongside, you typically have not earned the right to room and need to concede. Rules differ for different series, but that's *usually* fairly consistent.

An exception would be heading into a really fast corner that doesn't really require much, or any braking. Here, the driver on the racing line(outside) is typically given the corner because the driver on the inside will NOT be able to hold their trajectory into such a fast corner. Because of the speed and a compromised early-apex line, they will naturally gravitate out wide and likely into the car on their outside. This is basically etiquette based on self-preservation more than anything, though. It is in a driver's best interest to concede to the guy on the outside in these cases. Examples of this are corners like Copse or Pouhon.

 

I am not really bothered about the rules in the real world. I am only concerned with how I think drivers should behave online, and that (for me) means.....

* no late brake dive bombing up the inside
* no excessive weaving and blocking
* leaving room for any cars that are alongside you through corners
* no forcing other cars off the track
* observe blue flag rules at all times
* get out of the way of any cars when you are on an outlap during qualifying

Of course, mistakes are made by everyone.....and this is where the "stop and wait" gentleman's rule comes into effect. Knowing that you will have to slow down and wait after hitting someone (assuming that it is your fault) is a great incentive to drive carefully.

 

@Seanspeed You mean Prost that:
- 1) Had a contract clause to block Senna from joining Williams in 1993. Basically he made a contract to make sure Senna has a worst car than him. That's worst than crushing into him. That is some next level kind of cheating, professional, cold cheating.
- 2) In 1989 Prost crashed into Senna to take him out of the championship and to make sure he wins it. And no point discussing whos fault it was, because by every rule in every book he crushed into him.
Just to be clear, I do not hate Prost or something like that, but facts are facts.

@martcerv Yes, perfectly OK to "exploit" that. But of course it's not an exploit, since it's legal and it makes sense. You have to have aggression and dominance assertion, otherwise you're going round and round like in an old people's home Sunday afternoon.

 

1) No, I dont think that's worse than crashing into another driver in an era where death was still a very real possibility in these situations. And dont think Senna wasn't just as political as Prost was, necessitating such tactics. It's not cheating in any sense of the word.

2) Prost did have that questionable moment in Japan 1989, not going to deny it. But it was also the culmination of a very bitter feud between him and Senna that had been harvesting for a couple years. It was certainly not Prost's MO and he definitely did not have a history of that type of behavior at all. He was generally a very successful driver through his own merits and not by regularly antagonizing opponents on the track. Pretty big difference, this once incident aside.

Trying to equate them is disingenuous. And how bout the other drivers I mentioned? Or are you going to ignore those in favor of pretending that a driver needs to drive dirty in order to be highly successful?

 

The thing is someone had to be seriously good to get away with the dirty crap. Funnily enough though in sims many people try to model themselves on this and not because they are very good but because they are not good enough to do anything else. They think the only way someone can win is by cheating because its the only way they can win,which is a different thing.

These same people are also generally not very quick and can barely complete a lap without hitting everything. They then say if your not wrecking others your a pussy when a proper good driver can be agressive but do it fair and without contact.

The few drivers that where quite a bit dirtier then others in f1 were an exception but they were all also very good drivers with proper pace. They could have still won many races and possibly even more if they didnt resort to the dirty tactics. But the only time they resorted to that is because they conceded the fact that others were quicker then them and the only way they could beat them was cheat at that moment.

 

Prost could take his car back to track and won Japan 1989, not get out of the car and talk with Balestre. His car was without any damage after the colision with Senna, but seens like the first thought of Prost was get out of race, instead, Senna desperate for back to the race.

And Suzuka was the only good race of Prost that year, his 4 wins all were with Senna out of the race.

The failures of engines, the bad races of Prost, all forgoten because this acident at Suzuka.

 

Of course it's cheating, to explain clearly: Williams in 1993 had the best car. McLaren was behind, you couldn't win a championship in a McLaren anymore. Prost was at Williams, Senna was at McLaren having discussions with Williams to join. Williams wanted them both in the team. Prost knowing this, asked Williams to put a contract clause that they won't take Senna in the team or else he won't drive. Basicaly he blackmailed Williams. So Prost in 1993 was in the best car while Senna was stuck in a worst car, because of that clause. If you can't see this is cheating... what else can I say.

I'm ignoring them because I have nothing against them. To be fair I know little about the 70s but from what I know, total respect. Also, keep in mind that sport evolves, like anything else. Don't give me examples of drivers from the 70s doing this and that, comparing them to other decades. It's out of context. Aggressivenes, skill level, training level, all evolve and increase from decade to decade.

I never said cheating, I said be aggressive, not a softie, don't cheat.

 

Aggressive and fair is different to aggressive and unfair, unfair is cheating and you seem to think leaving racing room = being a pussy. I think not leaving racing room and driving others off track at any point is cheating so its a difference in interpretation of what you think is fair. If people dont need to leave racing room then how are you ever meant to pass anyone if at any point they can just run you off the track. A good fair driver will simply use pace and car positioning to pass someone while giving them some track to use even during a pass, an unfair one wont and that is basically cheating.

 

For one, nobody was completely sure that the 93 Williams was going to be the best car. It was predicted Williams would be very strong, but nobody anticipated it was going to be quite as good as it was.

Two, Prost's wishes to not have Senna in the same team were as much to do with not wanting to deal with the political BS that he dealt with at Mclaren as it was not wanting a competitor who might beat him. Which was understandable if you at all followed what happened between the two from 88-90'.

Three, Prost's bargaining position was not as strong as you're thinking. There is actually no proof there was any 'contract' to keep Senna from the team and it was more likely that Williams understood that bringing in Senna, given the relationship I mentioned above, was not going to be a great idea. I'm sure Prost had a whole lot of words about it, but it's unlikely it was in an actual contract. It's actually a huge myth that drivers are ever given these 'powers' via contract. It's mostly just common interests and bargaining chips at work.

As far as this being cheating, I mean - I dont know where on earth you're even trying to come from. It is, in absolutely anyway you look at it - entirely legal. So not cheating. By definition. That's really the absolute bottom line and your whole argument about it definitely being cheating is completely merit-less.

I can see that you think it's not entirely fair, though. I get that. But motorracing isn't ever fair. Is it fair that one team has $300 million to spend and another only $80 million? No. That's not 'cheating', though. Dont water down such a literal word in order to express frustration. That does no good at all and only makes you seem overly dramatic at best.

You're ignoring them because it's inconvenient to acknowledge them.

And it's certainly not out of context. You made some claims about how a driver's mentality has to be 'at all costs'. There is absolutely no reason why this would be different in any era if this principle was at all true.

The truth is simply that you dont at all need to be dirty or highly aggressive to be great. I'm not saying there's no causal relationship between being an elite competitor and being unable to accept defeat, I'm simply saying that this isn't a *requisite*. There are certainly plenty of elite competitors in all walks of sport that are not like this at all.

 

Williams already has the best car in 1992. It was clear it was going to be the same in 1993:

[Wikipedia, Williams FW14, 1992]: the car was the most technically sophisticated on the grid. By 1992 the FW14B featured semi-automatic transmission, active suspension, traction control and for a brief period anti-lock brakes. Add to that the superb aerodynamics by Newey that was far ahead of the McLaren MP4/7A, Ferrari F92A orLotus 107 [...] The FW14B was so successful that its successor (the FW15), which was already available mid-season in 1992, was never used.

The 1992 car also helped Mansell win his championship and also become the first driver to win 9 races in a single season. I'm not saying Mansell didn't deserve to win, I'm saying to win 9 races you need the best car. It was pretty clear Williams was leading in 1992 and 1993.

That's an opinion. I think it was because he didn't want to get beaten. There's always going to be politics. That's the way it works anywhere, especially in this kind of job where hundreds of millions of $ depend on the performance of two people. There were politics, it's part of their job, but there wasn't any situation where Prost was the victim. Senna was the victim at least in 1988 when Prost & Balestre disqualified him at Suzuka.

Senna said this to the press back in 1992. You'll say "that's not proof!". Oh, but then Prost said it himself in a video in 2010. When Frank Williams told him "we want to bring Ayrton" Prost said "that is not fair, we have a contract". Also, the fact that Senna finally came to Williams in 1994 was the reason Prost retired from F1, he also says it:

If you define cheating strictly as doing something illegal, then it wasn't. It's a tricky word since it doesn't mean the same thing for everybody: I ment morally, not legally. You can still do something legal and it can be wrong and not fairplay. So let's say he didn't cheat, he was just being immoral, unfair.

Sure, it's not fair that some have more than others. But are you trying to say "since the world is not fair, we might as well be evil"? Two wrongs don't make a right. Some teams have more, that's a situation not a choice, being non-fairplay is a choice. You can't defend a wrong using another one. "Yes, he crushed into him, but some teams have more money too!".

I acknowledge them, but it was in the 70s. Sport changes from decade to decade. It becomes more complex, the athletes become better, more and more is expected of them.

Ok, let's leave "dirty" because I don't mean you have to crush into people. Let's use "aggressive". I think it is a requisite for this sport. We're talking about motoracing and about 80s on, not every sport. Racing is a physical sport of outrunning and outmanouvering your opponents, it's not 200m running where everybody runs in a lane and we time who is faster. It's also not chess so we time who is smarter. It's a combination of many things, but it implies being aggressive and having courage to stand for yourself to reach out and grab your win. Not wait around like a good schoolboy for pople to give it to you, that's all I mean.

 

So for you dirty is what I call a prick still, simply driving others off the road and not willing to pass anyone fairly. That is all that's being suggested yet you strictly disagree with this but don't want to call it cheating.

2016 FIA regulations.

https://www.formula1.com/en/champio.../Licenses_driving_protocol_and_penalties.html

Nobody said you need to drive around behind others waiting for them to give you a spot you can do all you can to fairly pass or hold position the opposite of this is unfair aka cheating.

Here even more basic to understand rules of racing.

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/the-rules-of-racing/

 

@martcerv I suggest you always carry something like this. And on the straights when they try to pass you, just shoot the tyres. My point: I never said crash into people or cheat. I just said to be have an aggressive attitude, but still be fairplay.

 

If you want to race like that maybe the NfS titles are the better games for you.
And if everbody will act like you on the track it will be destroy the good online racing. For me you are just an unteachable child. Nothing more....

 

@After_Midnight You're confused. The point of this thread is to discuss professional F1 racing, and more specifically the Rosberg+Hamilton incident. It is not about AC racing, online racing, me racing, or any other type of simracing. And you don't understand what I'm saying.