Track limit sensors

[Bagwan]

They've come up with the idea of having sensors to police the track limits .

At first glance , with all the drivers using more than the track really allows if they are given the slightest chance , it looked like a good idea , and thus , rules were applied to keep them in , and now sensors .

Several drivers , including Zo and Bunsen have said it's a good idea , but Seb has a different take .

The tracks now have all pretty much changed to a standard curbing system , at great expense .
The curbs are designed to punish those crossing the limits on the outside of a curve , destabilizing the car , losing it time , making it an undesirable place to go .

Logically , if one was using a system to alter the driver's habits , one might think of adding more curbing , or changing the profile to make them more severe , to achieve the desired effect , applying the same tools .

He didn't explain very well , but it's what I believe he was getting at .
Why bother with curbing at all if you are going to have electronic limits ?
He'd rather they do some redesigning of the tracks , so the curbing is sufficient .

I agree .

[Nitrodaze]

if it was Monaco or Singapore with their AMCO barriers, drivers would respect the barriers. Electronic fencing is better than AMCO barriers or those car damaging yellow sausage kerbs, drivers should respect the track limits.

That said, the FIA is showing an air of zero tolerance in recent times. They would start wearing uniforms, batons and a monocle [maybe a nervous twitch in the left eye as well] soon.

[denkimi]

a bit of grass or gravel has the same effect, but is much cheaper than sensors.

[Koz]

We don't need silly sensors. We need uniform rules, not the oh you can do it here but no there, maybe it's ok maybe it's not. You want 10 drivers to be "under investigation" after Eua Rouge or Ascari each lap?

Charlie decides this before every race? Maybe that's fine for drivers (which I doubt), but how the hell do the rest of us know what arbitrary shit they feel like coming up with and how and why it is enforced or not.

[Nitrodaze]

We don't need silly sensors. We need uniform rules, not the oh you can do it here but no there, maybe it's ok maybe it's not. You want 10 drivers to be "under investigation" after Eua Rouge or Ascari each lap?

Charlie decides this before every race? Maybe that's fine for drivers (which I doubt), but how the hell do the rest of us know what arbitrary shit they feel like coming up with and how and why it is enforced or not.

Electronic sensors sort of resolves that, don't you think? You can't argue with the electronic reading. If it says a driver strayed out of the track, then the time is automatically via electronics erased. Now that is as uniform as you can get. I agree it is abit cold, but it as true as you can get.

[Bagwan]

Electronic sensors sort of resolves that, don't you think? You can't argue with the electronic reading. If it says a driver strayed out of the track, then the time is automatically via electronics erased. Now that is as uniform as you can get. I agree it is abit cold, but it as true as you can get.

Vettel's point , though , is that if there wasn't a mall parking lot's worth of tarmac on the outside of every corner , they wouldn't be driving on it .
They tried to solve the issue of extra paving with curbing , and with little bollards you must drive behind , and now with electronic sensors .

Maybe it's astro-turf , or another less than grippy coating before you run into the parking lot that could fix it , but electronics sensing cars going off during the race seems like an endless argument after every race .

Think about it .
Every transgression recorded , and perhaps grounds for gripe .
Perhaps simple enough for qually , where every off will , or should , nullify a lap .

But , take it to the race , and you'll now have race control informed on every time it occurs , instead of when they see it on camera , or when a complaint comes in .
Will they now be obligated to investigate whether a driver was forced off or not in every case ?
If so , they are going to be busy .

[Whyzars]

But , take it to the race , and you'll now have race control informed on every time it occurs , instead of when they see it on camera , or when a complaint comes in .
Will they now be obligated to investigate whether a driver was forced off or not in every case ?
If so , they are going to be busy .

Four wheels off track is a driver error regardless. If another driver has caused the incident then they will investigate and penalise accordingly.

They've always had the information available to them via cameras but have been very inconsistent in policing and/or penalising.

I have always been of the view that if all four wheels venture outside the track boundary at the same time then it is a driver error and should result in an immediate drive through penalty. Its a quick penalty and sufficiently harsh to simulate the armco at Monaco.

I think it is brilliant to remove all doubt with sensors however if they do something like a weak "three strikes" rule then it becomes pointless.

I say a tentative hooray... :D

[Jag_Warrior]

I prefer the idea of sensors instead of a dependency on humans having to catch (and judge) this particular infraction. It was pointed out on the practice broadcast that the stewards watch a bank of monitors. And with 22 cars circulating, they may or may not catch everything that happens. I would say that if nothing else, this should largely eliminate the inconsistent calls, as far as track limits anyway.

[airshifter]

Well now we have sensors on some corners, and apparently a 3 strike rule. If you do it four times you get a drive through.

So I imagine it will just be a matter of time before a driver exceeds track limits on one of the corners to make a pass stick, and then the powers that be revert to the rule of gaining advantage by going four wheels off. But for whatever reason, gaining advantage by going four wheels off when not making a pass only matters if you do it four times? :laugh:

[Koz]

Max was complaining that Kimi was also going off the track... But as one of the commentators pointed out it wasn't the corner with the sensors...

So what happens now?
Will this be implemented on whole circuits or just corners that Charlie doesn't like?

[airshifter]

Max was complaining that Kimi was also going off the track... But as one of the commentators pointed out it wasn't the corner with the sensors...

So what happens now?
Will this be implemented on whole circuits or just corners that Charlie doesn't like?

From my understanding the rule is enforced on corners where the driver can gain a time advantage by exceeding limits. These were the corners that had the sensors installed at Hungary as well.

Personally to me it should be an all or nothing rule. Exceeding track limits is exceeding track limits.

[Nitrodaze]

Vettel's point , though , is that if there wasn't a mall parking lot's worth of tarmac on the outside of every corner , they wouldn't be driving on it .
They tried to solve the issue of extra paving with curbing , and with little bollards you must drive behind , and now with electronic sensors .

Maybe it's astro-turf , or another less than grippy coating before you run into the parking lot that could fix it , but electronics sensing cars going off during the race seems like an endless argument after every race .

Think about it .
Every transgression recorded , and perhaps grounds for gripe .
Perhaps simple enough for qually , where every off will , or should , nullify a lap .

But , take it to the race , and you'll now have race control informed on every time it occurs , instead of when they see it on camera , or when a complaint comes in .
Will they now be obligated to investigate whether a driver was forced off or not in every case ?
If so , they are going to be busy .

The electronic barrier is interesting for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it persuades drivers to make an effort to control themselves without the need for a hard deterrent. The track limit is clearly marked. With the electronic sensors, no driver would gain unfair advantage over another, the outcome would be the same for all drivers. That there is a parking lot space outside the track limit does not warrant that it should be abused. Hence, l do not think Vettel has a valid point. It's like saying, because there is a hard shoulder on the motorway, it is ok to overtake slower vehicle using the hard shoulder. Or use the hard shoulder to get ahead when there is a traffic jam on the motorway.

Secondly, astor tuff and grass are not ideal for all conditions. In the wet they are quite useless at slowing the cars down. This is one of the contributing factors to Bianchi's accident as his speed was not retarded by the grass hence why he carriered into the barriers at higher speed than anticipated. The grassy bit along the track at Spain, resulted in Hamilton spinning into Rosberg. Hence you can see why an electronic barrier coupled with a hard surface that drastically reduces speed may be an ideal option.

Thirdly, you cannot argue with the electronic sensor and computers. If a driver strays of the track, he is detected and punished instantly. Kind of like being caught by a speeding camera and getting your ticket instantly to your mobile phone.

I suppose the real issue is the inconsistency of how the system is applied. The idea that drivers can stray at some corners and not at others, is confusing. Also it does not assist the drivers to comply with the rules. They stray at one corner it is fine but not fine at the next corner. It is fair to say, that the electronic approach would appear agreeable, if it is applied to all corners. Or corners where drivers are likely to gain unfair advantage should have a special kerbing to deter such abuse. Maybe, this is where a variant of the sausage kerb is required. Whichever way you look at it, this problem is not an easy one to solve.