Has the FIA lost control of track limits? (Part 2: Races)

This article looks at how the FIA have dealt with cars going off-track, commonly referred as ‘track limits’. More specifically, this article looks at how the FIA have dealt with track limits during races. This is the second article analysing Formula 1’s solutions for track limits, following on from Has the FIA lost control of track limits? (Part 1: Qualifying).

How has the FIA attempted to enforce track limits in a Grand Prix?

FIA Solution 1: Reasoning

The conclusion may be valid, but it’s not true. This inductive reasoning only implies likelihood and not certainty. This conclusion fails to acknowledge a very obvious flaw: a car can still gain an advantage despite not losing or gaining a position.

Example 1: Gaining an advantage despite not losing a position.

A car may not lose a place but as a result of going off-track, it may have impeded an opponent behind, thus gaining an advantage by not losing as much time relative to the opponent due to the opponent losing time relative to themselves.

The blue car has out-braked (error) and continued to race whilst off-track in order to get to the racing line on track ahead of the red car. Thus, gaining an advantage by not losing a position despite making an error.

Example 2: Gaining an advantage despite not gaining a position.

A further example though, perhaps slightly less obvious, is when a car may not gain a position but has gained an advantage due to it being in a better position to overtake as a result of going off-track.

The illustration on the left shows the relative time/distance that should have been lost due to driver error had a genuine effort been made to make the corner. The illustration on the right shows that as soon the driver realises they are not going to make the corner (an error), they are essentially racing whilst off-track to minimise the impact of the error. In the example above, the driver has returned ahead of the opponent (2) and decided to give the place ‘back’ to their opponent as the overtake was made off-track. However, whilst giving the place back they have matched the opponent’s speed and positioned themselves right behind the opponent (3) for an attack/overtake at the next corner – an opportunity they should not have. Thus, gaining an advantage despite not gaining a position.

Verdict: Whilst the conclusion may be valid, it is not true. This inductive reasoning only implies likelihood and not certainty. It is clear that drivers can gain an advantage despite not losing or gaining a position. The drivers are, in effect, policing themselves in terms of how much time they lose after leaving the track and are gaining an advantage in terms of reducing the lap time they should have lost to their competitors, either by not losing as much time they should have and/or by making their competitor lose lap time. Thus, not losing as much lap time they should have relative to their competitor(s). 1/10

FIA Solution 2: Penalties

A typical example of gaining an advantage by not losing a place is when Max Verstappen outbroke himself on lap 1 in the 2018 Japanese Grand Prix, re-joining the track and impeding his opponent on the racing line. So, whilst Max Verstappen did not gain a place, he did gain an advantage by not losing a place to Kimi Raikkonen (and possible another as he did not lose a place to Sebastian Vettel who was very close behind Raikkonen). Despite this, and the fact that the incident by Verstappen cost Raikkonen a place and damage to his car, the FIA gave Verstappen a 5-second penalty for re-joining the track dangerously.

Another example of a driver attempting to police their own loss when abusing track limits is with Sebastian Vettel on Lewis Hamilton at the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix. Hamilton had been close to Vettel for a number of laps – less than two seconds behind – and pressured Vettel into making a mistake, causing him to outbreak into turn 4. This led Vettel to cut across the grass and re-join the track after turn 5, resulting in Hamilton breaking to avoid contact.

The FIA rightfully gave Vettel a penalty, though the penalty was for, again, re-entering the track in an unsafe manner, not that Vettel had gained an advantage in terms of impeding his opponent. Hamilton was clearly disadvantaged by Vettel’s off-track error. Vettel’s reply to his punishment was that, “I had nowhere to go. I didn’t see him.” He doesn’t need to see him; he knows exactly where he is likely to be. Vettel knew he was about two seconds in front of Hamilton and by going over some slower grass, he knew that Hamilton would be on the racing line. To think otherwise would be naïve and seasoned drivers are anything but!

Whilst there are countless examples of drivers going off-track and gaining an advantage with the FIA punishing some and not others, what the examples above highlight is that the drivers are being allowed to police it themselves and are, usually, only ‘caught’ if they re-enter the track dangerously. Penalties do not ruin racing, they help protect the most skilful driver (car aside) and help keep the drivers safe. If you hold the view that a race is spoilt by a penalty decision, then you need look no further than the driver who made the error (or tried to cheat).

In the 2019 Mexico Grand Prix, the FIA said that drivers would be given a warning if they exceeded track limits three times (on the same corner). If a driver then repeated another (similar) offence, they would be referred to the stewards (common rhetoric from the FIA nowadays). In my view, drivers should be given fair warning, possibly two chances, and then given an automatic penalty for every subsequent infringement, with the penalties increasing in severity, i.e., third offence is a five-second penalty, fourth offence is a ten-second penalty etc. My preference aside, what this shows is that the FIA are not able to clearly define the consequences of abusing track limits in a race. In other words, the FIA are not clear and are essentially making up the playbook off-the-cuff.

There is arguably no better highlight of this unwritten playbook than when Charles Leclerc outbroke himself and cut the corner on turn 1 when leading the 2019 Monza Grand Prix with Lewis Hamilton about a second behind him. Leclerc did not go through the required slalom track as well as deciding to accelerate whilst cutting the corner to take the fastest way back to the racing line.

First, outbreaking yourself and cutting the corner should result in losing more than a second in lap time, thus resulting in losing a place (and yes, the lead). This one-second lead was actually subsequently restored after the normal yoyo effect (car in front accelerating first out of a corner) taking effect after the next corner, allowing Leclerc to maintain his 1-second lead.

Second, Leclerc had already been shown the black-and-white flag for bad sportsmanship – for a move and squeeze in the braking area against Hamilton earlier in the race – yet the FIA did not act on Leclerc abusing track limits. This further highlights the non-existent rule book the FIA have, which, in turn, makes it difficult for them to make ‘tough’ correct calls as they are literally making it up on the spot.

The FIA Race Director explains the black-and-white flag as, ‘… a sign to everyone that the driver’s on notice because you only get one for the race. If you do it again, the drivers have all been advised that any other infraction will be referred to the stewards’. So, what does this mean exactly? Wouldn’t a driver be referred to the stewards for any infringement regardless whether or not they had received a black-and-white flag? Once again, it is evident the FIA actually don’t know themselves and therefore cannot state clearly to drivers the consequences beforehand.

When the FIA do hand out a penalty to drivers who have gained an advantage when abusing track limits, usually reasoning the gaining of a place, they are often given a five-second penalty. The illustration below is from the 2019 Monza Grand Prix when Alex Albon (blue car) completed his overtake off-track on Kevin Magnussen (red car).

Albon would have known he’d be investigated and instead of policing it himself by giving the place back, he decided to take a risk with the FIA’s inconsistent penalties. Albon, also, may have been reluctant to give the place back to Magnussen as there was now a Toro Rosso (orange car) right behind him and most likely would have resulted in him losing two places.

Whilst it is worth considering whether or not Magnussen had left enough space and penalising Magnussen for forcing Albon off-track, in this situation, Albon did not make enough of an effort to make the corner. Now, this incident happened on lap 8 and Albon was given a five-second time penalty on lap 19 when he was 12.5 seconds ahead of Magnussen. Why such a delay, for a simple decision is baffling.

This is not the first time a driver has actually still gained overall despite being given a five-second time penalty for gaining a place whilst abusing track limits. If a driver were made to give the position straight back by being instructed to or policing it themselves, it is reasonable to suggest that they would lose a number of seconds whilst giving the place back and several seconds (perhaps each lap) before, and if, they complete the overtake again. In other words, it is reasonable to suggest that by outbreaking themselves (error) and having to give the place back and follow the car for a number of laps before completing the overtake, they would actually lose more than five seconds.

In the example above with Albon, if he had been instructed, rightfully, to give the place back, and if he had not been able to overtake Magnussen in the next 11 laps, Albon would have lost 12.5 seconds. Notwithstanding that Albon’s tyres would have been in worse condition as well as his pit window opportunities being narrowed, he nevertheless still gained, roughly, 7.5 seconds after receiving a penalty for overtaking a competitor off-track. A risk worth taking perhaps.

Due to its lack of enforcement, the FIA are encouraging drivers to take these risks, in particular, with tracks that are difficult to overtake on. In the case of Albon, if the driver has completed a move whilst abusing track limits, and the FIA are possible dealing with another incident and unable to instruct the driver to give the place back, then a multiplier penalty calculator could be used. This uses data from previous seasons on the track to determine how many laps, on average, it would take a car with similar deltas to overtake.

The table above uses purely fictitious data. The purpose of this table is twofold. First, to prove that drivers, at times, would be happy with a five-second penalty if their race-time gained is still greater even after receiving the penalty. Second, to standardise and calculate accurate penalties that are in the rule book before the lights out.

To emphasis, the above table is just a simple idea that could easily be developed to factor in many other variables, e.g., space in front of the car overtaken, the difference between the deltas of the two cars, etc. The FIA have the data to work out these averages and standardise the penalties, giving consistency from a clear, written rule book. Naturally, at times, a different penalty may be rewarded due to other reasons which must be explained, otherwise the default would be a clear, accurate and fair penalty.

Verdict: It is reasonable to assume that as soon a driver makes a mistake, they immediately seek to mitigate the error and to work out how, if possible, to keep a competitor behind them. In this, and most, instances the recovery action would be to hold up the competitor by moving onto the racing line as soon as possible (usually dangerously). The FIA must take full control of driver errors and take policing track limits out of the drivers’ hands.

Also, if the odds are low to get hit by a penalty as well as the penalty itself still not negating the advantage gained, then the drivers are likely to take chances against the FIA’s unwritten rule book. The FIA continues to turn a blind eye to track limits at times. This is simply highlighted when Verstappen in the 2017 USA Grand Prix was penalised for cutting a corner but others were not (e.g., El Rouge, turns 6 and 8 from Circuit of Americas). Cutting a corner is cutting a corner regardless of what corner, lap, race, driver and/or outcome. In addition, the FIA must define the consequences of abusing track limits before the races start! 2/10

FIA Solution 3: Curbs

A variety of new kerb designs have been implemented over the years in a bid to deter drivers from abusing track limits. The Austrian Grand Prix is a race that is often in constant battle with drivers running wide at corners. Here, they have used a variety of aggressive kerbs that increase in severity the further from the track, i.e., the more the drivers abuse track limits. In the past several years, this has seen many cars with suspension failures, in particular in practice and qualifying.

The FIA’s usual approach is reactive due to their lack of foresight in predicting incidents. What invariably happens is that they notice during practice sessions or qualifying that they have a problem and often just place a curb for Sunday’s race(s) to deter drivers from abusing track limits. Examples of this last season were when curbs were placed on the inside of corners 6 and 8 at the USA Grand Prix after most drivers were cutting the corners during qualifying.

This reactive approach saw the FIA in 2019 place a sausage curb on the outside of the fast, turn 11, Curva Parabolica turn in Monza, resulting in catapulting Alex Peroni’s GP3 car into the air. Another example was also in GP3 when Tereshchenko in Spa in 2014 was also capitulated into the air, and flipped, whilst running over a sausage curb.

Verdict: Whilst not all eventualities can be predicted, placing any curb on the inside or outside of a fast-approaching or high-speed corner needs more thought. In the Parabolica incident, the FIA simply took the view that a sausage kerb would be a good idea. Regarding the Spa incident, kerbs need to be modified so that from one side/angle they do not lift cars up which may be out of control but also deter drivers who are cutting the corner from another side/angle. 3/10

FIA Solution 4: Slalom Tracks

In an effort to penalise the drivers for going off-track and to not gain an advantage, the FIA have introduced a number of slalom tracks in which the drivers are required to drive around boards before they re-enter the track. These have two purposes: first, to penalise the driver for making an error in terms of time, i.e., it takes time to manoeuvre through these, and second, to help drivers re-enter the track in a safe position.

Whilst at times these have worked (e.g., Monza turn 1 (at times)), it only tends to work when the driver has locked up in the braking area and does not attempt to make the corner. What these slalom tracks fail to solve is when a driver starts to turn into the corner – thus missing the slalom track entrance – and cuts the corner over several curbs usually. A particular problem that the slalom tracks have inevitably created are mini-race tracks, encouraging the drivers to continue to ‘race’ whilst off-track. Furthermore, these slalom tracks do not always encourage drivers to safely re-enter the track.

Turns 2 and 3 at the Russian Grand Prix are corners that have been plagued by track limits due to the tarmac run-off areas. The corners causing most issue are turns 2 and 3. Before the 2019 Russian Grand Prix, the FIA Race Director said, “Any driver who fails to negotiate Turn 2 by using the track, and who passes completely to the left of the first orange kerb element on prior to the apex, must then re-join the track by driving through the three arrays of blocks in the run-off, to the left of the first (orange block), to the right of the second (white block), to the left of the third (orange block).”

The above illustration highlights how this slalom track actually encouraged cars that were off-track to drive towards each other – in near opposite directions, and something that would have likely taken place during any of the races that weekend. Now, luckily for the FIA, after Friday’s practice sessions, the drivers had complained about the difficulty of navigating through the slalom track, so the FIA gave way and the F1 Race Director sent out revised notes for Saturday stating, “Any driver who fails to negotiate Turn 2 by using the track, and who passes completely to the left of the first orange kerb element prior to the apex, must rejoin the track by driving to the left of the white blocks and remaining to the left of the orange block in the run off,”

In a GP2 race, this revised slalom track played a significant part in a serious crash on lap 1, causing Nobuharu Matsushita and Nikita Mazepin being rushed to hospital, resulting in the race being red flagged. What had happened was that the red car and blue car made contact with each other whilst navigating (but actually racing) through the slalom track which resulted in the blue car re-entering dangerously (not in control) and making further contact with another (orange) car that had taken the corner perfectly correct, causing both cars going into the barriers.

What the FIA had failed to see, or understand, when designing this slalom track is that at the beginning of the race, there is a strong likelihood that multiple cars would be going through the slalom track, but entering it at slightly different times from different starting points. As pointed out earlier, the original slalom track actually promoted drivers to drive towards each other whilst navigating (racing) through. Notwithstanding the revised slalom track was an improvement, it still failed to register the strong likelihood that multiple cars will be travelling (racing) through at the same time. At the point where the two GP2 cars made contact, it was barely wide enough for two cars, hence the contact.

Verdict: Whilst at times it may have worked, at others it has further increased the likelihood of a crash either by having multiple lanes which feed into each other (in case of the Russian Grand Prix) or by promoting unsafe re-entry to the track. The FIA have inevitably created mini race tracks off the circuit. 2/10

Returning to the question: Has the FIA lost control of track limits in races? Yes.

The FIA must take it out of the drivers’ hands to determine how much they lose from going off-track. The drivers should not be left to referee how much they lose from their mistakes let alone promoting them to race whilst off-track. The introduction of the virtual safety car was a (reactive) result of taking control away from the drivers, i.e., not allowing the drivers to determine the speed.

In terms of penalties for off-track misdemeanours, they have to be at least the size of the advantage gained and not the other round. In other words, if the advantage gained was calculated at 3.5 seconds, then the penalty must aim to be as close to, but always greater than 3.5 seconds. Otherwise drivers would discover that at times it’s better to get a penalty as overall they have still gained an advantage. The multiplier penalty calculator is a suggestive way to help write a rule book for infringements that are not dealt with immediately.

Even better if the FIA conducted a study to see whether F1 driver’s take more risk on tarmac run-off corners. A suggestive theory is that is has actually promoted more risk-taking, and thus dangerous driving as the drivers are going over the limits of their car more often. There have been a number of very serious accidents in these run-off areas recently. To note, I am not suggesting the tarmac areas completely disappear, that would be unrealistic, but certainly this should be further investigated to promote better solutions.

The Stat Squabbler concludes:

1. Due to flawed reasoning, dangerously unimaginative solutions and complete lack of consistency on penalties, the FIA has demonstrated poor leadership on track limits in terms of clarity (rule book) and solutions.
2. Could barely do a worse job even if they had tried.

Do you agree with The Stat Squabbler: Has the FIA lost control of track limits in races? What score out of 40 would you give them?

Comment below.