Firstly
China is irrelevant to this matter.
A decision that occurs(right or wrong as it may be) in a hairpin on lap one in one track where 2 or maybe 3 cars on a good day could potentially go round does not set a precedent for contact in a chicane on lap 48 at another track. Each situation will be viewed on its merits and these two are not the same.
We are here to make a finding on the Canada incident and not the China incident.
It is unfortunate that the COA process was not in place at the time and that any team could not pursue its concerns at following China.
The event
Simon has gained on Parisis over a couple of laps and has a DRS run on Parisis (who also has DRS open). Parisis moves right early on the straight.
Simon has better speed and makes the pass on the outside.
At 250 metres its a done deal, He is in effect clear. However Conti (also on outside) who was pitting and did not have DRS but was still full throttle had ony 311 kph vs Simons 328.
This baulks Simons advance momentarily and lets Parisis regain some overlap (say 55%).
Parisis is on the less advantageous inside line and has to brake more, this gives Simon more of a lead as the braking occurs. At the turn in point Parisis has about 25% overlap.
Contact ensues between Parisis front left and Simons rear right wheel. Simon is spun.
The relevant rule
Is rule 7.1
"7.1 The car on the inside line has right of way in a bend as long as they are under control,
all situations will be judged on their own merits. When going two-wide through a bend, both drivers must give the other driver room for (a) their car (b) warping (connection lag) and (c) margin of error. In reality, this means that each driver must give the other driver a fair and sporting amount of space. So squeezing the other driver wide is not allowed. When overtaking a competitor, the attacking party should only attempt to overtake in a corner if at least the front of his car is alongside the defending party when they arrive at the turn-in point of the corner. If the attacking party tries to make a move from further back and makes contact with the defending party, the attacker will be held accountable. Conversely,if the defending party does not give enough room for the attacking party when they arrive at the apex of a corner side-by-side, ending in contact, the defending party will be held accountable."
The interpretation of that rule
The FSR rules – are in fact far from specific for all environments and do not deal specifically with this particular kind of situation. Chicanes are not specifically dealt with.
Now I don't expect and it would be unreasonable to expect them to be. It would mean describing what is fair in a hairpin, a slow corner, a fast corner, entry to a set of curves etc. Then further multiplying the rule set by what is correct when attacking from the outside, the inside, the entry , the exit.
So it's for us to interpret within the guidance of the rules what is fair and reasonable.
The rule as its written deals with bends and what is required when drivers are going 2 wide through a bend.
Importantly it also says “all situations will be judged on their own merits”.
The rule is written as a global guidance under general circumstances which can be reasonably interpreted to mean two drivers in a bend side by side where there is enough track to grant racing room.
We need to decide what needs to be done for drivers to in a practical sense follow the rules.
For that reason I go to the interpretation of that sentence which is conveniently given to us where it says “In reality, this means that each driver must give the other driver a fair and sporting amount of space”.
So the rule tells us what it says.
When going two-wide through a bend, both drivers must give the other driver room
Then it tells us what it means
When overtaking a competitor, the attacking party should only attempt to overtake in a corner if at least the front of his car is alongside the defending party when they arrive at the turn-in point of the corner.
Conversely,if the defending party does not give enough room for the attacking party when they arrive at the apex of a corner side-by-side, ending in contact, the defending party will be held accountable."
It is down to the COA members to come up with a workable guidance within the framework of the rules as to what is reasonable under all the circumstances.
How it applies here
My argument is that to follow the basic principle detailed in the rule that says
“In reality, this means that each driver must give the other driver a fair and sporting amount of space”.
In such a chicane there is very little chance of two cars making it through side by side. So to cause 2 cars to attempt to go through side by side leaves very little margin for error if one wants to “give the other driver a fair and sporting amount of space”.
The following car is putting its nose into a very tiny space that will by the time you arrive at the Wall of champions be gone.
However each driver can attempt to stay within the rules here as at any place.
Conclusion and finding
To form the conclusion that it was a racing incident it would need to be found that the contribution was approximately 50-50. That both drivers were following the rules and unavoidable contact occurred.
Having watched the preceding 18 laps by Simon I am convinced that he made reasonable efforts to provide a fair and sporting chance by taking a line that was 1 cars width wider than his normal racing line at the first apex. I do not think that it was possible (for Simon) to give more space and still make the corner a) safely and b) without later contact. You can't ask the driver who is ahead to stop or to crash to avoid contact.
At any rate it is my finding that Simon adhered to the rule.
I find that Parisis attempted a move that ended in him not adhering to the rule.
My finding is that Simons car was the lead car on the track. He had track position, a better line into the first apex and consequently higher speed.
However Simon left a fair and sporting amount of space. He is not required to provide a completely useful and 100% convenient amount of space, simply a fair and sporting amount of space. It's up to the attacking driver (behind) to decide if he can make it work under the circumstances.
Parisi was hampered by a less advantageous tighter inside entry line due to his defensive positioning on the inside. It required more braking to a lower speed to have the chance to make the corner. It was still going to be tight to be able to make it and leave the required margin to “give the other driver room for (a) their car (b) warping (connection lag) and (c) margin of error.” A choice was made by Parisis to continue to fight for the corner. It was a difficult trajectory , his front tyres were locked up moments before the impact, He didn't make it. This also negates reliance on the part of the rule that says “The car on the inside line has right of way in a bend as long as they are under control,” As with a lock up and understeer he was not under control.
From all practical and realistic perspectives if you attempt to go 2 wide into this chicane you are not and cannot claim that you have executed your responsibility to ….”give the other driver a fair and sporting amount of space.. .give the other driver room for (a) their car (b) warping (connection lag) and (c) margin of error.”
Still however Parisi had the right to try and it was incumbent on Simon to do his fair part. But it didn't work out.
If we can accept that it was very risky to try to go 2 wide here then the decision to take that risk rests with the following car. To avoid a high risk Parisis. needed to cede the chicane.
We cannot ask the lead car to bale out and cede the chicane. The following car can see the gap in front of him and needs to act accordingly.
His failure to do so was the main cause of the contact. Thus the greater responsibility for the contact rests with Parisis.
Parisis had the smallest of overlaps and pushed it into a very tight chicane. It was never going to work.
The point of disagreement
It is agreed between all panel members that Parisis shares some blame for the contact. However the key point of disagreement between the panel is whether or not Simon left space.
It is my view that he did in fact give a fair and sporting chance by leaving a cars width or slightly more. Certainly a totally different line to his normal racing line to accommodate Parisis. He is not required to leave enough space for a low percentage move from a poor angle of attack to work, just a sporting chance. If contact still ensues then it is the responsibility of the driver who took too big a risk given all of the circumstances.
Simon was in front and left space. Parisi was behind and took a risk.
I would add that the slight hesitation caused by the lift (by Simon) to avoid Conti could have given Parisis the impression that he could still legitimately be in the fight for this corner. It would have been difficult to process in real time in Parisis cockpit. For this reason I take the view that it should be viewed as minor rather than major transgression.
I maintain that Parisis judgement was the proximate cause of the contact. It's a minor infringement. -.50 SR.
To find otherwise is to suggest that its OK to try to go 2 wide into a chicane with 25% overlap and the car ahead needs to find a way to help you make it work.
A general Comment on Chicanes
My view is that in a chicane such as this one it is just not reasonably and realistically possible for 2 cars to pass safely with both being allowed racing room. IE That if it's attempted then 9 times out of 10 there will be significant contact.
If you enter at a shallow angle you need all of the second apex, if you enter at an acute angle you need to go to the wall. In either case at some point in the chicane there is no room beside you. That is unless we ask drivers to slow to 70 kph.
Its not do-able side by side.
If we do agree that this is the case then it becomes necessary that the decision to allow racing room has to occur before the corner, IE for one driver or the other to back out of it, to cede the chicane. Failing to do so will in effect deny the other driver racing room (at some point in the chicane as unlike a bend you cant realistically stay to one side).
It then becomes a question of who should have backed out of it.
