2020 F1 Race Collisions Season Review (Part 1)
2020 F1 Race Collisions Season Review (Part 1)
Race collisions in Formula 1 (F1) invariably lead to hotly contested debates within the fan base and media as to which driver was at fault. Such debates and the perceived injustices over the outcome are exacerbated significantly by the FIA’s apparent inability to deal swiftly and equitably with the collisions. Inevitably, in motorsport, but particularly in F1 when cars are travelling over 200mph, collisions are going to arise when drivers are fighting over the same piece of tarmac. Having said that, F1 is a sport and all sports have rules for two purposes: fair competition and safety. All race collisions that occurred in the 2020 F1 season will be reviewed.
Formula 1 2020 Season Race Collisions Review (Part 1)
On the eve of the opening race in Melbourne, the Covid-19 pandemic put a brake on the start to the season. On reconvening, the race calendar had been reduced to 17 races (originally an unprecedented 22) and held over a considerably shortened season. This review does not include all racing incidents, e.g., drivers forcing one another off the track, jump starts nor driving into barriers through their own mistake, but focuses simply when contact was made between two drivers/cars.
There were 25 such collisions, with the first 12 reviewed in this article (Part 1). The final 12 collisions are in Part 2. The views in this article are purely based on video footage from the original tv broadcast. Below is summary of the first 13 collisions, which indicate a significant disagreement with the FIA’s dealings with them.
What criteria will be used to find the guilty driver?
- Lack, or loss, of control of car (e.g., locking up)
- Had they earned the space around the corner
- Who was entitled to that piece of tarmac (for this, cornering lanes will be used)?
Basically, cornering lanes acknowledge when drivers have earned the right to some space around the whole corner. Thus, allowing both drivers to carry on their wheel-to-wheel battle. This review is not intended to deter overtaking, on the country, some of the best racing is when drivers race through multiple corners side-by-side. The only way this happens though is when drivers give enough room, i.e., play fair, through cornering lanes.
Race 1 – Austrian GP (Red Bull Ring)
Season Collision 1 – Sainz vs Vettel
On lap 31, after a restart, Leclerc and Sainz were side-by-side entering the braking zone into Turn 4, with Vettel a couple of car lengths behind. At the end of the heavy breaking zone, Sainz decides to concede the place the Leclerc. At this point, as all three drivers are turning into the corner, Vettel attempted to get alongside Sainz at the apex. This space disappeared quickly and Vettel, trying to avoid the inevitable contact, started to lose the back of his SF1000, resulting in him spinning around. Tyres of both cars lightly brushed against each other as Vettel began to spin.
As a result of the incident, Vettel lost about 5 places (about 10 seconds) due to spinning. There was no damage to either cars and both finished the race. Interestingly, there was no investigation and the viewer can only surmise that the FIA Race Stewards deemed Vettel to be in the wrong and as he was the only driver to lose out in the incident, this was enough punishment – however this was never explained.
Vettel was in the wrong, he was never fighting for position with Sainz entering the braking zone, nor at the end of the breaking zone. Therefore, Vettel had not earned the right to be given space by Sainz going through the corner. Furthermore, it was Vettel, when taking avoiding action, lost control of his car (see below).
With regard to whether Sainz was in the wrong, is a little trickier. At the end of the breaking zone, Sainz decided not to continue fighting around the outside of Leclerc through the corner (he had earned space on the exit of the corner). Instead, he took a late apex in order to complete a switchback move on Leclerc. This is a completely legitimate move to straighten up the car earlier to apply the throttle earlier, however, in this instance, after a restart – or any instance when the pack is bunched – should drivers be allowed to cut from the outside of the racing line (due to turning in late) and take the normal racing-line apex?
If drivers do decide to cut across the track aggressively when the pack is bunched, then they are running a huge risk of another driver being at the apex. Also, it is usually the car in front that often gets spun around and one could argue that you are simply inviting someone to attempt an ‘opportunist’ move as the door is deemed to be left open. Alternatively, you could argue that if a car is clearly ahead (>than half a car’s length) in the breaking zone, then that driver is entitled to take any line he/she likes going through the corner. Personally, I think this matter would have to be discussed with the drivers and voted on to give clarity. The issue would then be what determines the pack to be bunched? (A little more complicated.) Perhaps, more simply, when a single car is in close proximity behind.
Season Collision 2 – Hamilton vs Albon
After another restart, on Lap 61, Albon is on a new set of soft tyres compared to Hamilton who is on used hard tyres. Entering Turn 5, Hamilton is just ahead (defending). Both drivers should be entitled to space through the corner as they are side-by-side entering the corner. Hamilton and Albon are both still side-by-side midway through the corner and as Albon starts to edge ahead, their wheels overlap. As Albon has better grip, he is able to start to accelerate out of the corner better, but as soon as he does, their tyres make contact and Albon spins round onto the gravel.
As a result of the incident, Albon went from battling for 2nd to 16th (last) due to the pack being bunched together for the restart. Hamilton was given a 5-second penalty for causing a collision, which resulted in him losing a podium (from 2nd to 4th).
The question is: did Hamilton leave enough space on the outside of the exit of the corner? For me, the key factor is, in which cornering lane did contact occur. As stated earlier, the cornering lanes should be determined before the race (using computers). For more detail on cornering lanes read (link to AI article).
Assuming the FIA Race Stewards did not have cornering lanes set up (to my knowledge), they should have gathered data on the lines taken by both drivers on this corner, as well as other data (GPS) of other drivers battling it out successfully (i.e., no contact) around this corner. This would help determine whether Hamilton left enough space for Albon on the outside of the exit (using an ad-hoc concerning lanes). Unfortunately, this process would very likely need to be done after the race (though there are multiple stewards so I don’t see why one cannot be assigned the task of data collection for the last 10 or so remaining laps).
Consequently, the stewards would have resorted to use video/photographic evidence of the incident. It is worth pointing out that two incidents between the same two drivers happened earlier in the race. The first incident was on Lap 1, Turn 1, where both Hamilton and Albon were side-by-side at the end of the breaking zone, entering the corner, thus both should be entitled to space through the corner. Albon is over aggressive (unfair) and forces Hamilton to take avoiding action. Hamilton is wise to this and runs wide to avoid contact. Albon is on the exit curb, thus no intention of leaving a car’s width. Albon (like Verstappen and Perez) all forced a driver off the track. Note: first lap leniency does not excuse dangerous driving.
The second incident, also on Lap 1, occurred on Turn 5 with the roles reversed compared to later in the race when contact happened. This time, Albon was defending the inside against Hamilton. The cars were side-by-side at the end of the breaking zone, entering the corner, thus both entitled to space through the whole corner. Midway through the corner Albon and Hamilton are side-by-side. However, Albon appears to be over aggressive (unfair) and forces Hamilton to take avoiding action (again) as he has no intention of leaving a car’s width on the outside of the exit of the corner. Hamilton is wise to this and backs out to avoid contact.
When contact was made on Lap 61, based on video footage alone, it would suggest a racing incident. This is because it appears Hamilton had left enough room on the exit of the corner. However, it is not clear in which cornering lane contact happened and thus would require this data. Furthermore, it must be noted in instances where a driver has a far superior tyre advantage, that a greater portion of responsibility is with that driver. For example, cars can get even closer to each other when their tyres are overlapping. However, when this occurs, in order for a car to accelerate away [successfully], the tyres cannot be overlapping anymore. Therefore, if a driver judges he can pull away when the tyres are overlapping, it is his responsibility to widen the gap between the cars. In this instance that responsibility was with Albon.
Season Collision 3 – Perez vs Norris
On Lap 69, Norris is still several car lengths behind Perez going into braking zone of Turn 3. However, due to significantly better braking performance Norris just about gets along Perez at they start turning into the corner. Perez takes the normal racing line (outside to apex) and cuts across Norris who tries to take avoiding action by straddling the inside curb, but there was not enough room and they make contact.
Here is another view of Perez turning into Norris.
There was no investigation at the time as the stewards (assumption) considered that Perez lost his battle/position for 4thand that was enough. After the race, Perez received two penalty points for causing a collision. This is the correct decision. Norris’s braking performance caught out Perez who was not defending the corner, assuming he could take the normal racing line. He was wrong. Furthermore, Perez left the ‘door open’, meaning that he did not defend the inside and thus, allowed Norris to take the risky opportunity.
Norris did not dive-bomb. This is when a driver forces themselves on the inside of the corner after the car in front has already started to turn into the corner. In simple terms, the car has attempted an overtake too late. On this instance, Norris was in complete control and was able to take the tight apex when the space disappeared. In effect, the above two pictures show that Perez moved across the whole race track (outside line to inside line) in the space of about 20 metres when there was a car close behind.
Race 2 – Steiermark GP (Red Bull Ring)
Season Collision 4 – Leclerc vs Vettel
On Lap 1, Leclerc is still behind his teammate at the end of the heavy braking zone before Turn 4. As the cars move around the apex at pedestrian-like speed, Vettel decides not to commit to the corner with a car either side of him. As a result, with only about 10 metres from the apex of the corner, Leclerc decides to move alongside his teammate through the apex. Vettel turns into the apex, Leclerc then tries to avoid contact by clambering over the curb, resulting in his car going up in the air and landing on the rear wing of Vettel’s Ferrari.
Leclerc was at fault. To go three abreast into a corner on the inside when you were never battling the cars for position throughout the braking zone is a big no! Notwithstanding that, Leclerc took full responsibility of the collision (drivers cannot be trusted to give honest feedback and they are defending their own position). The overwhelming evidence points sole responsibility at Leclerc for the first lap incident.
The ‘Teammate Penalty’ Factor
Let’s clarify the facts: (1) a significant collision between two cars; (2) the collision forces another driver (rival) out of the race; and (3) one driver was at fault. What did the FIA do? They didn’t even investigate it. Yes, that’s right! Unfortunately, this is no great surprise to a F1 fan and just yet more compelling evidence of the FIA’s dire inconsistency. Let me be clear just in case the FIA are listening: all collisions must be investigated. FIA F1 race director said after the race, “The stewards looked at that at the time and determined that the incident didn’t warrant any further investigation.” So, another car (rival) completely takes another car out of the race and an investigation is not warranted. Completely unacceptable and shameful from the FIA.
Now, should there be a teammate factor in determining penalties for drivers? The race director thinks so, “I think it certainly does. Obviously, it is taken into account. But I don’t know that it is a determining factor either way. We’ve seen incidents between two team mates be penalised before or otherwise.” The Formula 1 season has two competitions running in parallel: The Drivers’ Championship and The Constructors’ Championship. These events are not mutually exclusive, thus there should be no teammate factor in determining race collisions. A further point is that rulings on race collisions are not only to ensure fair competition within the two championships, but ultimately such ruling are for the safety of all drivers. In other words, a driver needs to be protected by the FIA from all drivers, including their teammate.
Yes, admittedly, teams would face a double-whammy at times. That’s probably why it’s good practice to give your teammate ‘extra’ room (also known as Rule 1: do not collide with your teammate).
Season Collision 5 – Perez vs Albon
Lap 67, Albon attempts to overtake Perez on Turn 4. The drivers are side-by-side entering the corner; thus, both having earned the right to some space around the corner. Contact is made on the exit of the corner between Albon’s back right tyre and Perez’s front left tyre and wing.
The camera footage appears to show that Perez did in fact squeeze Albon too much, i.e., did not give him enough room on the outside of the exit of the corner. For this collision, more data is needed, i.e., corning lanes.
To note, this is the same corner Albon collided with Hamilton a week earlier.
Despite very similar contact a week earlier, different sanctions were given. This leads to the question: should the consequences of the driver at fault of a collision be factored into the sanction? Absolutely, but not to the point that they are completely removed from all punishment. For example, if a driver is at fault but loses 30 seconds themselves, then that time lost should be factored into the time penalty they receive in the race. However, it does not excuse them of being penalised for dangerous driving and should always be given penalty points on their licence. How many? Well, that depends on the seriousness of the offence. More on this in Part 2.
Another question: should race stewards hear the racing drivers views to help them determine who was at fault?Absolutely not. Most of the drivers, if not all, will try to cover themselves. Perez admitted understeer into him. Do you seriously think he would have admitted that if he was under investigation or given a penalty? Likewise, with Leclerc earlier. Do you really think Leclerc would give the same answer if the collision happened in one of the last races and had a significant impact on the Drivers’ Championship? To note, Leclerc did say only 1 race + 1 lap before his collision with Vettel that he would not collide with his teammate again (bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1).
Race 3 – Hungarian GP (Hungaroring)
Season Collision 6 – Latifa vs Sainz (pit lane)
Sainz is driving down the pit lane, approaching the exit, having already taken his stop. Latifa – from the last pit lane box – is released into the pit lane whilst Sainz is there. As the pit exit nears, Latifa moves over to the pit lane and contact is made.
This one is straight forward. Williams were wrong to release Latifa whilst Sainz was in the pit lane that Latifa would have normally taken. Latifa suffered a huge time penalty with his spin and puncture, limping around the whole lap. Therefore, I disagree with the 5-second timed penalty. Race penalties should be a punishment. Now, because of the outcome, Latifa could basically count his race null and void due to the incident. Although, it is his Team’s action that, too, receive a punishment. Notwithstanding this, in this instance Latifa knew he was squeezing Sainz to backing out as Latifa did not take the normal exit from his box (i.e., stayed on the inside).
Should drivers be allowed to be side-by-side in the pitlane? The pitlane is one car’s width wide…
Season Collision 7 – Albon vs Grosjean
Albon is catching Grosjean at a fairly rapid rate. Near the end of the heavy-braking zone at Turn 1, Albon decides to overtake Grosjean on the inside. Grosjean starts to turn in to the corner without Albon having any part of his car alongside. However, Grosjean decides not to take the apex and leaves space on the inside. However, contact is still made.
Albon is at fault. When entering the breaking zone, he was still on the racing line (see image below), showing no intention to Grosjean that he was attempting an overtake. Albon does not even have any part of his car alongside Grosjean in the breaking zone nor at the end when they turn in. Therefore, Albon has not earned the right to any space from Grosjean going through the corner. Albon only positioned his car alongside Grosjean’s as they were turning in. In F1 language, Albon ‘dive-bombed’.
A particular characteristic of dive-bombing is that the driver does not have full control of his car. This is usually shown by either the driver locking wheel(s) and/or missing the apex and running wider at the apex. Again, GPS data and telemetry data would help show the extent to which Albon carried too much speed into the corner, thus missing the apex and running wide into Grosjean. It must also be pointed out that if a driver is attempting to overtake another car on the inside throughout the corner then their speed will be slower than normal due to taking a tighter corner. First by entering the corner by not being on the racing line and thus, making the turn in tighter. Second, if both cars are still racing around the corner, then the inside car should give space on the outside of the exit of the corner, thus, again, making the turn tighter.
Race 4 – British GP (Silverstone Circuit)
Season collision 8 – Magnussen vs Albon
At the end of Lap 1, Magnussen clips the inside [orange] curb coming out of Turn 17, resulting in a little loss of speed/acceleration. Albon attempts to take advantage of this and puts his car on the inside of the last corner. Contact is made.
Notwithstanding that Albon had the better exit out of Turn 17 due to Magnussen travelling over the [orange] inside curb, Albon is at fault. Magnussen is on the racing line heading into the corner and is still completely ahead as they begin to turn in so does not need to give Albon space through the corner. Also, there is no breaking zone, thus any pace/acceleration advantage Albon had would decrease at they continued to accelerate towards the apex.
Albon’s trajectory is over the inside kerb which is a big no no. Albon knows this as he just had the best seat in the house to view Magnussen’s car lose stability going over on the previous corner. However, this was at a signigicantly less speed. Not only was Albon wrong to attempt the overtake, he backed out of it too late aswell.
Race 5 – 70th Anniversary GP (Silverstone GP)
No collisions. Well-behaved boys.
Race 6 – Spanish GP (Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya)
No collisions again. Well-behaved boys.
Race 7 Belgian GP (Spa-Francorchamps)
No collisions for three races in-a-row! Well-behaved boys…well…not quite. Did Perez squeeze Gasly too much against the wall?
Yes. Perez knows Gasly is there because he would have taken the racing line otherwise. As evidenced above (and from his GPS on previous laps), the racing line goes to the outside of the track. Of course, I welcome hard racing, but there’s a limit and Perez crossed it here. Perez should have received two (if not three) penalty points here.
For those saying that it was just hard racing, it should be pointed out that Gasly actually took avoiding action. If Gasly had stayed within the racing track, they would have been contact. Now, contact at top speed, with a wall right next to them could very easily been a ‘plane crash’ as Martin Brundle described it in commentary.
Race 8 – Italian GP (Autodromo Nazionale Monza)
Season Collision 9 – Albon vs Gasly
On Lap 1, entering Turn 1, the cars of Stroll, Gasly and Albon are side-by-side in the braking zone and attempt to go through Turn 1 three abreast. Contact is made between the outside two drivers of Gasly and Albon.
Racing Incident between Albon and Gasly. Albon actually went off the track on the straight to avoid contact. Gasly had nowhere to go as Stroll moved across towards him. Having managed to avoid contact on the straight, it was a little ironic that contact was made when Albon was actually on the track (i.e., there was a bit of room on the outside). However, the incident is not necessarily closed…
The images above do not highlight the fact that Stroll moved across half of the race track when the pack in bunched (it was the first corner!). One could argue that Stroll does not have the right to move towards the racing line as much as he did in the braking zone. The Red Bull car in front of Stroll, also on the inside, takes a tighter corner as he is aware that he cannot just move across to the racing line. Stroll would know – or has to at least assume – that he has two cars on the outside of him.
Race 9 – Tuscan GP (Mugello Circuit)
Season Collision 10 – Sainz vs Stroll
On Lap 1, Sainz and Stroll were racing side by side going through Turn 2. Halfway through the corner there was the smallest bit of contact. Sainz ended up spinning
Video footage was not that clear of the incident. The replays were more focused on the collision behind them involving four cars. Coming back to this incident, Stroll had left enough room on the inside, and it didn’t appear Sainz was not in control. I think perhaps Sainz just asked a little too much of his car and entered the spin regardless of the very small contact with Stroll.
Season Collision 11 – Gasly vs Grosjean vs Raikkonen vs Verstappen
On Lap 1, the three cars of Grosjean, Gasly and Raikkonen were all side-by-side racing down the straight to Turn 2. Gasly was squeezed from both sides and contact was initially made with Raikkonen on the left. This then caused a chain reaction, with Gasly making contact with Grosjean who was on his left and Raikkonen going into the back of Verstappen.
Three abreast never usually results in a good outcome for all drivers. In this case, is was a bad result for all three. Unfortunately, this racing incident ended up making contact with a fourth car [Verstappen]. This was a racing incident. How they got into this pickle was that Raikkonen was actually ahead of the other two coming out of Turn 1, but had some oversteer, thus allowing Grosjean and Gasly who were already racing each other to pull alongside Raikkonen.
Season Collision 12 – Giovinazzi vs Magnussen vs Latifa vs Sainz vs Ocon
As a result of the previous collision, the cars followed the safety car. When the safety car period ends, the first car [Bottas] dictates the pace as well as deciding when to restart the race by accelerating. At this point the lead car tends to bunch up the pack by driving slowly. Despite Bottas dictating the pace for a while, the whole field did not bunch together. This left gaps and these gaps lead to cars accelerating with the end result of the cars further back second guessing that the race had restarted. It had not and the result – a huge pile-up.
Accumulative actions lead to this huge pile-up at the restart.
Based on the video footage broadcasted, Ricciardo, Perez, Norris, Kvyat and Giovinazzi contributed the most to the restart pile-up. It is not hard to investigate properly. GPS data showing the gaps between cars and throttle trace to see who was accelerating dangerously (i.e., how hard and for how long) before the restart.
Whilst these drivers did not single-handedly cause the pileup, there cumulative actions led to the much bigger issue of the cars behind thinking the race had restarted when in fact it had not. Each of the cars highlighted here would have contributed to the pace of the cars involved in the incident. To illustrate, Ricciardo would likely to have increased his speed to close the gap to the car in front of him. This subsequently creates a bigger gap between Perez and Ricciardo, so Perez then accelerates a little quicker closing the gap. An even larger gap is now created behind Perez which is then reduced by a car accelerating even quicker. This continued until drivers thought they were racing. Again, it must be noted this analysis is based on video footage only, and Stroll and others further forward may have left big gaps too.
In their review, the FIA issued formal warnings to 12 drivers for their contribution to the restart pile-up. The drivers were found to have used ‘inconsistent application of throttle and brake’ (read: racefans.net).
Summary
The Stat Squabbler
- Agrees with only six out of the first 12 collisions
- Disagrees (to a varying extent) for five collisions
- More data desirable for one collision
How many penalties did the FIA give out that you agree with? How many penalty decisions do you agree with the Stat Squabbler? Let us know your thoughts.
In Part 2, you will find the remaining 12 collisions of the 2020 Formula 1 season. This article will also give a review on the whole season, detailing which driver was awarded the ‘unluckiest’ and ‘most dangerous’.
Comment below.
