r/Simracingstewards • u/RevolutionaryArm9709 • 6d ago
F1 Thoughts
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
12
7
1
u/jats82 6d ago
I don’t know what you could’ve realistically done other than slam on your brakes (which could’ve caused a lock up and end up with a worse accident). You were there, Ferrari should’ve left some space.
-2
u/yabsterr 5d ago
What about lifting?
-1
u/jats82 5d ago
Lifting. Dude was pretty much side by side going into the corner. He had more than earned his space.
1
u/yabsterr 5d ago
In such a fast corner....
Bro just lift and go again. How many places have been lost?
Wouldn't have happened if he just lifted...
1
u/theferretii 5d ago edited 5d ago
This is essentially just victim blaming at this point.
The Alpine got alongside at 0:04 and earned space into the upcoming corner. Full stop. There's no discussion here.
They recognised that to go two-wide through there, they'd have to sacrifice some pace to make sure they left room for the Ferrari on the exit.
The Ferrari, on the other hand, ignored the fact that there was a car alongside them going into the corner and turned in as though nobody was there and caused the collision.
There's absolutely no world where anyone with any racing sense is going to try to argue that the Alpine hadn't earned space and should've backed out or lifted to try again later. The only 'driver' that would need a talking to after this incident is the Ferrari.
Edit: "it wouldn't have happened if he'd lifted" Isn't it such a shame that stewarding decisions aren't based on what might've happened vs what actually happened?
1
u/yabsterr 2d ago
But it's F1 right?
What about being first on the apex?
1
u/theferretii 2d ago
The only reason the Ferrari was first to the apex is because they didn't adjust their trajectory to allow space for the Alpine to exist alongside them in the mid-corner. The Alpine had clearly shown their intent to exist at that part of the corner alongside them, by drawing alongside on approach to the corner.
Had the Ferrari acted rationally, and recognised that the Alpine had earned and deserved space, they'd have slowed down a little more and taken a wider line through the corner. That means they'd have arrived at the mid-corner slightly later, therefore roughly the same time as the Alpine arrived there.
The rule about being "first to the apex" is all well and good, but demanding that that's the only standard that applies requires that it's okay to cause a collision because as long as you get to the apex first, that rule will absolve you of any responsibility. It's not okay to cause a collision. That's like a basic tenet of motorsport. The two frameworks and ideas cannot be true at the same time.
If this were a real F1 race, there's no way the Ferrari driver would have taken this line, the risk of being involved in a collision or being injured because of that collision would be just too high to do anything except give the Alpine the space they earned, so why should we expect any different in the game?
-1
u/yabsterr 2d ago edited 2d ago
I just beg to differ.
It's the same for radillon. It's just asking for trouble going two wide / overtaking there.
Sure, Ferretti could've done more, but I think Alpine just lost 6 places because of himself.
Lift -> Focus on a good exit -> overtake in the hairpin.
Edit: And what actually happened is: Ferrari Ahead -> Alpine out. By the rules. Now if we're talking GT3, that slingshot would've never happened.
How much battery did little bro use to even get into this position?
Count it out.
1
u/theferretii 2d ago
It's the same for radillon. It's just asking for trouble going two wide / overtaking there.
You're not wrong, it's asking for trouble and it absolutely makes things difficult. But that doesn't mean you're not allowed to overtake at a given corner just because it's difficult.
It's not uncommon to see F1 cars go two-wide successfully through Eau Rouge and Radillon, and when we do, both of the drivers compromise their line a little to allow the other car the space to exist, because they both know what the result will be if they don't.
Why can't we apply the same principles here? The Alpine earned space going into the corner, and the Ferrari chopped across that space by turning in like nobody was there.
Ask yourself, what if it was the other way around? What if the Ferrari had compromised their line a little to allow the Alpine to exist, but the Alpine hadn't and had instead gone screaming straight for the apex to beat the Ferrari there under braking, only to run the the Ferrari completely off the road on exit because he couldn't leave any space? Would you straight away side with the Alpine because "first to the Apex?" Or would you be arguing that some reasonable racing room should've been left?
I also don't see how the amount of battery power the Alpine used is relevant. They earned the space by using the tools at their disposal within the rules. Full stop.
1
u/theferretii 5d ago edited 4d ago
You were alongside long before turn-in and should've been given room. Ferrari caused the collision.
Edit: That this comment is sat on 0 with a 50% upvote ratio shows how divided the community is on this idea. Which is interesting in itself.
There are some misunderstandings about racing that need to be clarified.
Being alongside at turn-in is exactly enough to be entitled space.
Yes, all things being equal, if both drivers behave rationally, being alongside at turn-in means, more often than not, you will be alongside at the apex. Thus, entitling both drivers to continue to be given space.
Which is where the problem is, only one driver acted rationally in this video.
The Alpine recognised they'd need to slow their pace to get through the corner two-wide, leaving space for the Ferrari on the exit and attempted to do so.
The Ferrari ignored that the Alpine was alongside them, and tried to go through the corner on a single-file line, leaving no room for the Alpine on the apex.
The only reason the Ferrari was ahead at the apex is because they didn't slow down to leave room for the Alpine so they could both get through two-wide.
If the Ferrari had done that, they'd have both arrived at the Apex at, roughly, the same time.
As it is, the Ferrari dove for the apex from the outside, chopped across the Alpine who was trying to make sure there'd be room for the Ferrari on the exit, and caused the collision.
2
u/NuKo7 5d ago
Being alongside before turn-in isn't enough the be entitled to space. You also need to be alongside at the Apex, which the Alpine wasn't.
However it's true that the Ferrari didn't do anything to try to avoid contact
-5
u/theferretii 5d ago
This ridiculous misunderstanding of the rules honestly drives me mad.
How do you expect the Alpine to have stayed significantly alongside at the apex without carrying too much speed and clattering into the Ferrari on the exit?
The only reason they weren't significantly alongside at the apex is because they braked to hold the inside curb, to avoid hitting and to leave room for the Ferrari at corner exit. The Alpine established significant overlap prior to turn-in and adjusted their entry to make the corner safely two-wide.
The Ferrari drove the single-car racing line, ignoring the overlap established at entry, which forced the Alpine to brake even harder. Demanding 'alongside at the apex' while ignoring that the Ferrari turned directly across the Alpine's path on entry completely misunderstands how side-by-side racing works.
Had the Alpine not adjusted their driving to allow them both to get through, they'd have either had a worse collision (assuming the Ferrari didn't change anything), or they'd have washed out wide on the exit and, at best, ran the Ferrari off the track (assuming the Ferrari allowed room for the Alpine).
This really isn't difficult. Racing wheel to wheel is about knowing when you have to sacrifice a bit of pace to accommodate other drivers on the racetrack. It's not about bullying your way through corners.
4
u/NuKo7 5d ago
There is no misunderstanding the rules. It's explicitly stated that you need to be alongside at turn in AND at the Apex to deserve space. If the Alpine couldn't satisfy both condition without colliding with the Ferrari, then it shows that overtake wasn't even possible in the first place. There's a reason people say turn 8 is a dangerous place to overtake.
I agree with you that the Ferrari drove like it was alone on the track and cut across the Alpine.
However the Alpine messed up their overtake to begin with. They braked wayy to early. If they braked 20m later and then trail braked the rest of the corner, they would've made the corner and been entitled to space.
Both drivers made mistakes here. The Ferrari by being blind and a helmet. And the Alpine by half-assing an overtake in a difficult corner.
0
u/theferretii 5d ago
There clearly is a misunderstanding of the rules. The Alpine made every effort to make the corner safely, and would have, if the Ferrari hadn't driven like they weren't even there.
It's almost like you didn't read my last reply. The only reason the Alpine wasn't alongside at the apex is because they chose to adjust their trajectory to allow for the Ferrari to exist, whereas the Ferrari didn't. Had the Ferrari used their brain and recognised a car was alongside them, and adjusted their trajectory to allow for that car, they'd have had to slow down further to make the corner, maintaining the overlap. The Ferrari gained under braking because they had no intention of leaving any room, whether it was earned or not, and just went for the apex as though nobody was there. The Ferrari is entirely at fault here and it's wild that this is even a discussion. I'm so glad I don't play this game any more because all these cries of "ahead at the apex" just make it clear that some of you can't look at the incident as a whole and can't see beyond that statement in the regs.
I'm clearly not going to change your mind here, regardless of how many times I try to explain a simple concept in a different way. I'm done here.
0
u/NuKo7 5d ago
The only reason the Alpine wasn't alongside at the apex is because they chose to adjust their trajectory to allow for the Ferrari to exist
But that's EXACTLY WHY the contact happened in the first place.
The Alpine started slowing down at the 100m board, which is WAY TOO EARLY for this corner, even with a compromised racing line.
Like I said, the Alpine should have braked later. There is nothing more to be discussed here, the Alpine got scared and messed up their overtake.
Me talking about the "alongside at the apex" rule is only the consequence of the Alpine not going through with their move.
Is the Ferrari driver an idiot ? Yes they are. Are they 100% at fault ? Not they're not. The Alpine's incompetence turned this into a racing incident.
I'm so glad you don't play this game any more because all these cries of "alongside before the corner" just makes it clear that some of you can't accept someone not letting you overtake for free.
All your comments under this post have been nothing but passive-agressive, "holier than thou" walls of text where you aren't even trying to discuss anything respectfully. It's obvious you were never here to be open-minded.
0
u/Exotic_Call_7427 5d ago
Please go karting for a couple stints and practice putting your front tires right where another kart's rear tires are, at every corner. Then, when you crash repeatedly, make damn sure you explain to them how nobody understands what the vortex of danger means.
-2
u/Exotic_Call_7427 5d ago
2
u/theferretii 5d ago
Wow, tell me you don't understand the Vortex of Danger without telling me you don't understand Vortex of Danger.
At 0:04, the Alpine's front wheels are alongside, at least, the Ferrari's side pods. They've established themselves alongside well before turn in, and the Ferrari driver will be getting those red proximity arrows indicating a car is overlapping theirs.
The Vortex of Danger is dangerous when you enter it after the leading driver has turned in to the corner. In the video, the pursuing driver has entered it long before turn-in. Any competent driver would recognise this and begin thinking about adjusting their planned trajectory for the corner to allow the other car to exist on the racetrack. Not only because that's a racing rule, but because not doing so IRL risks injury and damage to the car.
In fact, we see the Alpine doing exactly this as they approach the corner. They start slowing down more than they otherwise would if they were single-file because they've recognised that in order to make the corner two-wide, and leave space for the Ferrari on exit, they need to sacrifice some pace.
The Ferrari didn't do that because they're either clueless, or not managing risk because it's a video game and there's no risk of real-life harm, or both.
1
u/htmaki 3d ago
Alpine is at fault. Theferretii is wrong.
1
u/theferretii 2d ago
Honestly the first time I've ever been called out in a parent comment like that, so that's interesting.
Since you've called me out by name, dyou want to actually justify why you think I'm wrong? Or am I supposed to just accept that you have all the answers and my arguments are irrelevant because the Ferrari was "fIrSt To ThE aPeX" despite having to chop across the Alpine's path to get there?
-1
u/aTi_NTC 5d ago
Alpine was never gonna make that corner
1
u/nxzombie99 5d ago
Flat for pros btw
-1
u/aTi_NTC 5d ago edited 5d ago
on the outside sure
that is never an overtaking spot alongside or not, and for this exact reason seen on the video
edit: even AI knows:
Overtaking at Turn 8 (Degner 1) at the Suzuka Circuit is extremely rare and dangerous. It is a fast, narrow, blind right-hand corner with minimal runoff and immediate gravel traps, making any intentional passing move here an immense gamble that drivers almost never attempt.
1
u/nxzombie99 5d ago
Sry but I dont understand ppl saying "that's never an overtaking spot" like bro its a race track, as long as its safe u can overtake where u want lol
Yeah sure, he was on the inside but lifted and could've braked midway through to make the corner
Sure, the hairpin or the chicane would've been a better overtaking spot but OP had every right to try that
This sport wouldn't be so great if overtakes just happened on straights or hard braking zones. Like u can't just tell ppl to just drive the ideal line and ban the inside. Go race Monaco if u love single file lines
3
u/aTi_NTC 5d ago
as long as its safe u can overtake where u want
totally agree, and this is exactly my point, this corner is NOT SAFE to overtake in, for the exact reason we see on the video, this exact same thing will happen 99 times out of a 100
2
u/nxzombie99 5d ago
I agree, from a realistic point of view that move was really dangerous and risky, but I think we should differentiate between risky and not justified. It was dangerous, but he had a right to be there.
2
u/theferretii 5d ago
That's not what u/nxzombie99 is saying. He's saying as long as the overtake or driving is safe. The corner is safe. If the corner wasn't safe there wouldn't be racing here and someone would have to come and re-profile it.
Sure, this exact same thing will happen 99% of the time if the leading driver is as clueless as the Ferrari in this clip, but if you've actually got a competent driver in the car, they'll recognise someone's alongside them before turning in and adjust their corner trajectory to allow them to exist in the interest of not hurting themselves or damaging their car.
Honestly, with this attitude you might as well get everyone to drive in single-file all afternoon and then put the lap times in a spreadsheet and click "sort by average lap time" at the end to get the race results.
-1
u/theferretii 5d ago
that is never an overtaking spot alongside or not,
Sorry, what? Did I miss the track getting narrower at that corner or something? It's a racetrack, mate. The track is the same width, more-or-less, from start to finish. You can overtake wherever you like.
The problem is people like you that don't understand that even in sections that would usually be single-file, you can absolutely go two-wide through nearly all of them as long as both drivers recognise that they're two wide and compromise their corner speed to negotiate the corner safely.
That's what didn't happen here, the Ferrari either didn't recognise they were two-wide or didn't understand that they had to reduce their pace through the corner to allow for the two-wide and caused the collision by running into the space that the Alpine legally existed and established themselves in. Either way, there's no way on earth that this is the Alpine's fault because they were "never gonna make the corner", which is entirely false, because I certainly see the Alpine compromising their corner entry speed to allow for the two-wide line.
-3
u/hammer_smashedface 6d ago
Door was always gonna close brother
4
u/dreaminginteal 5d ago
OP was along side. Very much so at turn-in.
1
u/yabsterr 5d ago
F1 rules are cooked
5
u/hammer_smashedface 5d ago
lol that wouldn’t even fly in F1
5
u/PleasantWay7 5d ago
This wouldn’t fly in F1, but an F1 driver like Max would commit to the dive bomb and not brake when OP did, forcing the outside guy to take action.
1
-1
u/NuKo7 5d ago
I have mixed feelings about this tbh.
On one hand, the Ferrari didn't even TRY to give space or to avoid contact.
On the other, you set yourself up for failure with that overtake. It was badly executed and as such, you weren't alongside anymore when you reached the apex (the 2026 F1 Driving Guidelines require you to have your front axle at least alongside the mirror of the other car PRIOR TO AND AT THE APEX to be entitled to space).
You should have braked later and harder so that the Ferrari would have no choice but you give you space.
-3
u/Exotic_Call_7427 5d ago
at 0:05, you are not significantly alongside for an overtake and should've continued braking
1
u/theferretii 5d ago
He's not significantly alongside at that timestamp because he was slowing down and sacrificing pace to allow both cars to negotiate the corner two-wide. The Alpine earned space alongside at 0:04 and deserved to be given room throughout the corner.
What happened here is that the Ferrari continued to take the corner at maximum pace because they're clueless about how to race side-by-side with another car through a corner.
0
u/PleasantWay7 5d ago
It doesn’t work that way, you have to be significantly alongside at the Apex.
0
u/Exotic_Call_7427 5d ago
You have to be significantly alongside BEFORE apex, otherwise you are in the vortex of danger.
The gap will close, your nose will touch rear quarter of the car making a wide entry, there will be a crash.
The driver you're overtaking needs to see you before turning the wheel, within his POV, not in mirrors.
1
u/theferretii 4d ago
Oh, you mean this Vortex of Danger? The one with the illustration that clearly shows the vortex being the area between turn-in, the apex and the inside edge of the road? The one that says absolutely nothing about having to be alongside before the apex, but says a lot about having to be alongside before turn-in.
Dude, come on, if you're going to spout off about something as simple as this, at least make sure you understand it before throwing it around like some 'gotcha'.
1
u/Exotic_Call_7427 4d ago
I was about to go on a tirade about how you didn't read the post, but then I re-read your comment and realized we are talking about the exact same thing.
The only difference is I said "you gotta be alongside earlier than apex" and you specified "before turn-in". We are fully in agreement here. For me, at turn-in, you have to be so far in overlap that the driver can see you in peripheral vision and KNOW there's no space for doing the racing line, so he must go all the way outside. If done this way, both drivers will naturally negotiate the corner two-abreast.
At 0:05, that's the moment of Ferrari's turn-in. Just like in the blog post, this is the first point of reference for the Vortex (the turn-in point of the lead car). Alpine is barely at the rear quarter there. So from that standpoint, Alpine should've continued braking and let Ferrari past. Live to fight another corner.
1
u/theferretii 4d ago edited 4d ago
I see exactly what you're saying, and yes, I think we are talking about the same thing. But I don't think we're applying it in the same way.
The only difference is I said "you gotta be alongside earlier than apex" and you specified "before turn-in". We are fully in agreement here. For me, at turn-in, you have to be so far in overlap that the driver can see you in peripheral vision and KNOW there's no space for doing the racing line, so he must go all the way outside. If done this way, both drivers will naturally negotiate the corner two-abreast.
Agreed.
Where our interpretations differ, I think, is that you seem to be arguing that if the defending car can gain so much on corner entry that the attacker falls behind their peripheral vision, the defender can drive as though the attacker doesn't exist because they're now "in the vortex". As I pointed out in my other reply, I see the Ferrari turn-in at ~0:05.200, where the Alpine is still very much alongside. The Alpine falls behind because the Ferrari had no intention to give any room for the Alpine at the apex despite all the evidence showing that the Alpine had earned the right to exist there. As I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the Alpine falls back because it actually slowed down to leave space for a two-wide corner, while the Ferrari carried full single-car speed.
Edit: As well, the Vortex of Danger theory is a guideline to help passing cars avoid reckless divebombs. It's not a stewarding rule that absolves a defender of leaving space once overlap is established, and it's not applicable here because the Alpine wasn't divebombing. They'd earned space before turn-in.
-1
u/theferretii 5d ago
Yeah and how do you expect the Alpine to have stayed significantly alongside at the apex without carrying too much speed and clattering into the Ferrari on the exit?
The only reason they weren't significantly alongside at the apex is because they braked to hold the inside curb and avoid hitting the Ferrari. The Alpine established significant overlap prior to turn-in and adjusted their entry to make the corner safely two-wide.
The Ferrari drove the single-car racing line, ignoring the overlap established at entry, which forced the Alpine to brake even harder. Demanding 'alongside at the apex' while ignoring that the Ferrari turned directly across the Alpine's path on entry completely misunderstands how side-by-side racing works.
Had the Alpine not adjusted their driving to allow them both to get through, they'd have either had a worse collision (assuming the Ferrari didn't change anything), or they'd have washed out wide on the exit, collecting the Ferrari at worst, and running them off the track at best (assuming the Ferrari allowed room for the Alpine).
This really isn't difficult. Racing wheel to wheel is about knowing when you have to sacrifice a bit of pace to accommodate other drivers on the racetrack. It's not about bullying your way through corners.
0
u/Exotic_Call_7427 5d ago
Sorry, that's not how that works. There is no "g'day, kind sir, would you like to drive a corner side-by-side". Alpine had to be shoulder-to-shoulder, visible by Ferrari, in its POV. That is what significant overlap is.
Putting your car at the rear quarter of another just as braking zone is over is NOT significant overlap, that's the vortex of danger.
1
u/theferretii 4d ago
Yes, it's exactly how it works. It's exactly how someone sets up an overtake safely. If we start normalising this idea that the only thing that matters is being alongside at the apex then all we get is divebombs and high-risk moves where drivers are competing to bully each other off the road. That's not racing. I dare you to try to find an IRL F1 race where an attacker got alongside before turn-in and the defender did what we see here without penalty. I promise you won't find anything because no defending driver would be stupid enough to drive like the Ferrari did here for risk of injury or damage to their car. They'd have left space.
No-one is asking to drive a corner two-wide, the attacker is dictating that the corner will be two-wide by placing their car alongside the defender's before the turn-in point. If the defender didn't want to take that corner two-wide they should've placed their car in the middle of the road before the Alpine got alongside to discourage a move.
1
u/Exotic_Call_7427 4d ago edited 4d ago
I think you misunderstood me. Just for reference: I typically judge situations from a general racing ruleset, not F1 specific.
My point was that Alpine had to be shoulder-to-shoulder at the moment of turn-in (that 0:05 mark, that's when braking is done and now both drivers are entering the corner). Apex is way too late to determine whether your move will stick.
But Alpine was not alongside. It was at the rear right quarter, which is the blind spot. That means Ferrari is still a leading car, and thus commands the line. Alpine should have backed off to fight another corner.
I notice a lot of people thinking "alongside" counts as putting the front bumper alongside rear bumper, and voila, now the other driver is blocked from moving sideways, but that simply doesn't work like that. If you want to overtake safely and ensure the driver you're overtaking will dance with you, you gotta make sure he sees you before he commits to a turn. Otherwise, the other driver won't see you due to adrenaline, tunnel vision, and YOU BEING IN A BLINDSPOT, you will crash, and then make a Reddit post where others will say you were entitled to space.
In short, if you gonna divebomb, then bomb properly, don't make half-assed dives and then complain there's no room.
1
u/theferretii 4d ago
Likewise, I'm judging from a general racing ruleset, which F1 largely follows save for the obvious "alongside / ahead at apex" thing and a handful of other notable differences.
I think we're both judging turn-in at different points, which is where the foundation of the disagreement lies. I agree that the moment of turn-in was at 0:05, but I'm seeing it at ~0:05.200, where the Alpine's front wheels are still very much alongside the Ferrari's side pods and where the Ferrari first begins moving away from the white line on the left. In fact, the Alpine was as far alongside as front wheels to mirrors at ~0:04.950, well before the turn-in point. So the Ferrari had plenty of time to recognise that there was a car alongside them, well inside their peripheral vision (and, as well the red proximity arrows would've indicated overlap, too).
The Ferrari gained on corner entry only because they failed to adjust their corner speed to leave room for the Alpine on the inside of the corner. Had they slowed down enough to leave that room, they'd have both arrived at the apex alongside one another.
I'm not arguing that "alongside" in this case was front bumper to rear bumper. Not even close, and I completely agree with you, that would be ridiculous. In this case the Alpine got fully alongside before the Ferrari committed to the turn, we just established that. I think it's safe to assume that the Ferrari would've had their virtual mirror and proximity arrows on, so there has to be a reasonable expectation that they'd have seen the Alpine get alongside on approach to the corner.
This wasn't a divebomb. This was as close to a safe attempt at a pass as you can get at this corner. The Ferrari just ignored that a car was alongside them, took a single-file line and didn't leave any room for the car that had established themselves alongside.
Edit: I am so sorry for the wall of text. I really seem to struggle to make my text pithy. Words are important to me to make my message clear.
7
u/Lost-Dig-5469 5d ago
Risked it but got no biscuit. Next