Quote:
Originally Posted by G99M5
according to the stewards
PARAPHRASING
there is a certain racing line that all drivers take in that sequence of corners
when max went round the outside at the first corner and colliding with Lewis in the next corner, Lewis took the natural line, max went off the racing line and rejoined in an unnatural position
in the ensuing collision the greater burden of fault was placed on max due to the unnatural racing line
|
"Natural racing line" is crucial for setting fast laptimes in F1 qualifications. But it sounds like becoming the new buzz word to criticize bold overtake maneuvers in F1 races ("he did not follow the natural racing line"). Sticking to virtual "natural racing line" corridors on a race track, instead of allowing F1 drivers to use the whole race track, risks to water down "Formula 1 racing" to "Formula 1 natural racing line snoozefests". Some virtual railway track or competitive super market queue.
Up next: "comfort zone". Say no longer "F1 driver X overtook F1 driver Y on the inside / around the outside", but say "F1 driver X violated the comfort zone of F1 driver Y. As a result F1 driver X gained an advantage at the expense of F1 driver Y who suffered moral distress from losing a track position".
OK, all kidding aside, perfectly aware that there are rules and there is abuse of rules - there are limits to what is reasonably acceptable. But more and more, teams and drivers try to influence race stewards with tactical onboard messages claiming that a violation/abuse was committed by a competing F1 driver, when in reality it just comes down to 'a racing incident' or simply to 'racing' itself.
Senna's view about "going for a gap" criticism: 08:08 - 08:29:
Example of gaining an advantage through abuse (Hamilton - 2021 Bahrain - final result: race win only 0.745s ahead of Verstappen, who had to give back P1 in lap 53/56 because of track limits violation):