During the last triptych of three consecutive races, a new system has also come into force to monitor the track limits and make it easier for the race marshals to manage and penalize any infringements of the rules. A push born above all from what happened in Austria about twelve months ago, when the FIA failed to monitor all the reports in real time creating confusion.
That Grand Prix was a sort of springboard to work on the theme, which then materialized through two different solutions that, however, work together. The first is the addition of gravel in some places together with the reduction of the width of the kerbs, so that anyone who goes beyond the white line inevitably ends up on the gravel itself.
The second is represented by artificial intelligence and, more specifically, by computer vision. The FIA had already started experimenting with this solution last year, but only during this season was it approved as a support for race direction, also through the use of a blue stripe in order to guarantee an additional visual reference.
However, despite the latest changes proposed by the Federation, the issue remains open: not all drivers and teams agree, especially on the ways chosen to apply the regulation, also in light of the latest changes. The most significant examples are those of McLaren in Austria, because both drivers were penalized for exceeding the track limits, albeit in different ways.
Detail of the curbs
Photo by: Jon Noble
The Piastri case: the criteria for assigning a penalty
After qualifying at the Red Bull Ring, McLaren had tried to overturn the FIA’s decision to take away Oscar Piastri’s best time due to track limits, suggesting that it had not been convinced by the evidence that, in theory, had nailed the Australian. In fact, according to the Woking team, the images shown by the governing body did not meet the criteria that the Federation itself had imposed to make a decision on cases like these.
McLaren’s challenge was based on three elements: first, the fact that the images shown by the FIA according to which Piastri was beyond the line, were in reality not clear enough to be sure that the Australian had actually violated the rules. The second point was of a technical nature, specifically the fact that the camera that had recorded the episode, namely the one from the helicopter, had not filmed all the drivers in the same place, making the sanction unfair according to McLaren.
Basically, in fact, the FIA had used the front camera to determine Piastri’s position in relation to the white line, with the one from the support helicopter to have an additional reference which, however, did not have an adequate resolution to remove any doubt. However, the front camera did not show clearly and with certainty the position of the left rear tyre, being covered by both the left front tyre and the side panel.
“The FIA confirmed that the helicopter view was a kind of support for their interpretation of a frontal view. But it was far away and does not allow you to see the position of the rear tyres and does not allow you to see the position of the edge of the front tyre in relation to the white line. For this reason I believe that the criterion of beyond reasonable doubt was not satisfied in this type of decision,” explained Andrea Stella.
For this reason, despite the protest being rejected, the Woking team still wanted to talk to the FIA, suggesting that the governing body has taken into consideration the team’s suggestions: “We have spoken at length about this issue and have sent all our possible suggestions to the FIA. We are satisfied that the FIA has taken on board these indications. And I believe that in the future we will see better criteria for excluding a car in order to respect some of the criteria that have been declared by the FIA itself in some decisions”, explained the Team Principal.
“These criteria are that it has to be beyond any reasonable doubt, as well as the fact that the camera used has to have an adequate resolution. Also, if you only use one view and one camera for a driver, then that has to be available for all competitors. These are three elements that form a set of criteria that, in the case of Piastri, were not met. But we discussed it, it was a learning point for everyone. The important thing is to improve the way we control and enforce the cancellation of lap times and move forward.”
The Norris Case: Why the Rule Won’t Change Anytime Soon
Also in Austria, another episode related to track limits involved McLaren, that of the five seconds assigned to Lando Norris in the race for having crossed the white line on four different occasions. Nothing unusual except for the fact that some of those warnings were related to long commitments in an attempt to overtake Max Verstappen in turn three, something that had annoyed the Woking team. Although the British driver still managed to serve the penalty during the race, effectively making it null and void since it was applied to the race time, the topic generated discussions.
According to several drivers, in fact, the FIA’s decision to penalize Norris for some long commisions during a duel is a wrong choice and should be reviewed. “This kind of decision will push drivers not to duel. If you don’t want us to race and you don’t want me to try to overtake and for the race to be boring, then let’s go ahead with this rule”, explained Norris himself.
Lando Norris, McLaren MCL38, Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB20
Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images
Kevin Magnussen also agreed, suggesting that the FIA should have a more open and less restrictive approach, given that the tracks have different characteristics. In recent years, the Federation has chosen a consistent policy for the entire world championship, but in the past it was not unusual to see different indications depending on the track: “The FIA has decided to be very strict on track limits. On some tracks, like Austin, if there were no track limits, it would be wrong, you would always go wide,” said the Dane of Haas.
“But maybe the FIA could be a little more pragmatic and apply them on some tracks. For example, in Austria if we go beyond that we still end up in the gravel. Maybe you go a couple of centimetres beyond the white line, but you would end up in the gravel, so you would still lose time. I don’t understand why on some tracks they are so restrictive.”
The issue was raised during the drivers’ briefing at Silverstone, but the governing body confirmed it would continue along the same lines in the future, as it does not want to change the way decisions are made and implemented mid-season, postponing any changes during the winter break.
Because there is no definitive solution
In addition to the discussions about Norris’s accident, drivers have been talking at length with the FIA about the track limit solution introduced in Austria. The idea of reducing the width of the kerbs to make them narrower and allow the cars to end up in the gravel has been welcomed and could be applied elsewhere, as already seen at Silverstone.
However, this is not a perfect solution, because the issue of gravel thrown onto the track after a car has passed remains open, as it can cause damage to the cars or tires, for example by causing a puncture, in some cases prompting the race direction to request the intervention of the Safety Car to clean the track. For example, Pirelli explained that in Austria, where gravel (not glued) was added beyond the curbs, it found cuts in the surface part of the tires. These cuts, while not affecting the construction and, consequently, the integrity of the tire, were nevertheless monitored by the Italian manufacturer, also because they make the tire more susceptible to punctures and other related problems.
The “glued” gravel layer in Zandvoort in the part near the chorus
Photo by: Jon Noble
One possible option would be to adopt a solution similar to the one used in Zandvoort in the third sector chicane, where the area near the kerb has a different gravel compared to other circuits, with the “stones” stuck together. In this way the grip is still reduced, but without the risk of the gravel being shot onto the track.
“Probably the best solution is to replicate the one adopted in Zandvoort, where the gravel is glued and we know that the teams and the FIA are talking about it. It could be a good solution because you don’t bring the gravel onto the racing line. I don’t know if we will go in this direction, but it could be a possible introduction for the future. But we know that the FIA will introduce gravel run-off areas more often in the future because they work,” explained Simone Berra, one of Pirelli’s engineers.
However, even “fake” gravel has its pros and cons. This solution has proven effective for low-speed corners, but there are doubts as to whether it will work at higher speeds with greater forces, or in wet conditions, where there would be a further reduction in grip.
There is also another issue that should not be underestimated: some tracks are on both the Formula 1 and MotoGP calendars. For example, some of the gravel run-off areas added in Austria and Great Britain would have to be removed in time for the motorcycle event, with the asphalt being re-laid. The possibility of adopting gravel also depends on whether circuits have the capacity to invest in circuit redesigns, and at the moment not all tracks are able to make such revisions.
#Track #limit #topic #remains #open