redress

[fordman]

This on speedcafe.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2022/05/16/poll-the-redress-in-supercars/

possible?

[madbugger]

I would prefer to see a situation when a redress has to happen there can be no opportunistic third party trying to take advantage of the situation. Think back to that messy situation at the chase a few years ago.

Not sure of the logistics of how it would work , but given there is incar communication to all cars it shouldn't be too difficult to set something up. Race Control could decide fairly quickly if redress is required and set an area where it can happen. Maybe have a 2 corner period after the position swap before any of the following cars are allowed to pass.

[fordman]

I would prefer to see a situation when a redress has to happen there can be no opportunistic third party trying to take advantage of the situation. Think back to that messy situation at the chase a few years ago.

Not sure of the logistics of how it would work , but given there is incar communication to all cars it shouldn't be too difficult to set something up. Race Control could decide fairly quickly if redress is required and set an area where it can happen. Maybe have a 2 corner period after the position swap before any of the following cars are allowed to pass.

it could work with some thought put into it, as you say should only occur if a third car doesn't get an advantage from it, would have to be a quick decision though maybe within 2 laps of incident?

[skaifeman]

I would prefer to see a situation when a redress has to happen there can be no opportunistic third party trying to take advantage of the situation. Think back to that messy situation at the chase a few years ago.

Not sure of the logistics of how it would work , but given there is incar communication to all cars it shouldn't be too difficult to set something up. Race Control could decide fairly quickly if redress is required and set an area where it can happen. Maybe have a 2 corner period after the position swap before any of the following cars are allowed to pass.

it could work with some thought put into it, as you say should only occur if a third car doesn't get an advantage from it, would have to be a quick decision though maybe within 2 laps of incident?

As long as a third car doesn't get a disadvantage from it either.

[djr18fan]

Good in theory. Harder in practice I reckon.
Often, a small indiscretion results in the victim going off track losing many places. Or having to pit for tyre or body damage.

It works for simple 2 car incidents. But they can voluntarily redress now can't they?

[TheArrow]

This get's brought up every couple of years (even back to the early 2000s, 20+ years ago) and as has been mentioned it's good in theory.

But it's so hard to practise it without in causing so many headaches. Obviously the 2016 example is one everyone thinks of very quickly, but there is also the 2017 Pukekohe situation which, while not officially a 'redress' situation it did have similar consequences.

How would they 'redress' the scenario where SCG punted BKo off at Townsville last year? Or more recently, Pither v Le Brocq at Barbegallo. Pither lost 4 positions when Le Brocq shoved him off at turn 1.

It literally only works if it involves two cars alone on track.

[fordman]

Good in theory. Harder in practice I reckon.
Often, a small indiscretion results in the victim going off track losing many places. Or having to pit for tyre or body damage.

It works for simple 2 car incidents. But they can voluntarily redress now can't they?

I believe they can voluntarily but I believe is done so to say to the officials oops I did bad so I fixed it myself so Please don't penalize me lol

Maybe this could be done for those incidents a voluntary redress doesn't occur.

But agree it may sound like a good idea but could be fraught with danger in reality.

[Sonic]

why should a 3rd party not get an advantage of a driver error? isn't that what racing is all about?

the Whin/GT/Scott example is why it needs to be done properly and maybe in a set area... if you lose more places than just the competitor you punt off then tough luck for you.

I still can't figure out how JW got away with no penalty for his balls up that ended the race for 2 other drivers.

redress is fine **if ordered by race control (and yes we know they can balls up too) but only in a safe manner... maybe, using Bathurst for an example, if you tip someone at the Chase when you get to the front straight you have to pull over to pit wall and allow them to regain the position... it's a safe spot... and if someone else is in there then bad luck. only needs one person to sit on the camera and it's a pretty quick call most of the time for an issue like that.

it also allows enough time to know if the person you punted has come out the other side of the punting!

[murph_fan51]

I would prefer to see a situation when a redress has to happen there can be no opportunistic third party trying to take advantage of the situation. Think back to that messy situation at the chase a few years ago.

The chase incident was bad luck and a racing incident - Scott rejoining the track with another car in the wrong place (GT) caused the crash. Not the redress itself.

The redress could occur sometime in the next lap, and not enforced straight away.

This has got to be better than a car crossing the line first but not winning.

[skaifeman]

I would prefer to see a situation when a redress has to happen there can be no opportunistic third party trying to take advantage of the situation. Think back to that messy situation at the chase a few years ago.

The chase incident was bad luck and a racing incident - Scott rejoining the track with another car in the wrong place (GT) caused the crash. Not the redress itself.

The redress could occur sometime in the next lap, and not enforced straight away.

This has got to be better than a car crossing the line first but not winning.

The race track is the wrong place? Scott rejoining in the manner he did was the issue. It's always on the car re-entering the circuit to make sure it's done so safely.
That 2016 incident will go around in circles, still boggles me that you can have 3 people together and all three can't agree on one driver. It's the perfect scenario .

[Sonic]

I would prefer to see a situation when a redress has to happen there can be no opportunistic third party trying to take advantage of the situation. Think back to that messy situation at the chase a few years ago.

The chase incident was bad luck and a racing incident - Scott rejoining the track with another car in the wrong place (GT) caused the crash. Not the redress itself.

The redress could occur sometime in the next lap, and not enforced straight away.

This has got to be better than a car crossing the line first but not winning.

The race track is the wrong place? Scott rejoining in the manner he did was the issue. It's always on the car re-entering the circuit to make sure it's done so safely.
That 2016 incident will go around in circles, still boggles me that you can have 3 people together and all three can't agree on one driver. It's the perfect scenario .

and here was me in some crazy mindset thinking it was a driver slowing in the middle of the track intentionally causing a roadblock...

yup, 6 years on and there will never be agreement.

Scott came on too fast... but if JW had stayed on it the 3 cars would have been nowhere near each other...

JW tagged Scott... GT would have been nowhere near the 2 of them without that incident...

bottom line is the one factor that doesn't change through it all was that JW tagged another competitor and then slowed, blocking the track, causing a 2nd incident....

I say again, redress is a bit of a dodgy thing if it is left up to the drivers to decide when it is required and where they will do it... the whole concept is based on "I screwed up and I hope this will stop me from getting a penalty"... maybe it is a sign of a weak race control not being in control?

[murph_fan51]

I would prefer to see a situation when a redress has to happen there can be no opportunistic third party trying to take advantage of the situation. Think back to that messy situation at the chase a few years ago.

The chase incident was bad luck and a racing incident - Scott rejoining the track with another car in the wrong place (GT) caused the crash. Not the redress itself.

The redress could occur sometime in the next lap, and not enforced straight away.

This has got to be better than a car crossing the line first but not winning.

The race track is the wrong place? Scott rejoining in the manner he did was the issue. It's always on the car re-entering the circuit to make sure it's done so safely.
That 2016 incident will go around in circles, still boggles me that you can have 3 people together and all three can't agree on one driver. It's the perfect scenario .

I probably worded that badly. I was meaning unfortunately for Tander, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time to be involved. Though he could have seen it coming?


And Whincup wasn't "in the middle of the track" that someone mentioned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sonic]

I would prefer to see a situation when a redress has to happen there can be no opportunistic third party trying to take advantage of the situation. Think back to that messy situation at the chase a few years ago.

The chase incident was bad luck and a racing incident - Scott rejoining the track with another car in the wrong place (GT) caused the crash. Not the redress itself.

The redress could occur sometime in the next lap, and not enforced straight away.

This has got to be better than a car crossing the line first but not winning.

The race track is the wrong place? Scott rejoining in the manner he did was the issue. It's always on the car re-entering the circuit to make sure it's done so safely.
That 2016 incident will go around in circles, still boggles me that you can have 3 people together and all three can't agree on one driver. It's the perfect scenario .

I probably worded that badly. I was meaning unfortunately for Tander, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time to be involved. Though he could have seen it coming?


And Whincup wasn't "in the middle of the track" that someone mentioned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Ks1_LSmM

He went from driver's left at apex of the left hander to driver's right on exit and back to driver's left at a much slower than race speed.

Agreed he didn't 'sit in the middle of the track' but he created the issue. Look at the video, GT wasn't even in the shot when the contact occurred... and then look at GT's closing speed on JW as he dawdles across the track trying to cover his mistake.

Yes if Scott stayed driver's right there is a likelihood that GT may have been able to safely split them... but then again JW was being a mobile road block and didn't want him to pass so maybe not.

Again though, it highlights the issue that if it is not done safely more than one incident can occur because of a driver's error (regardless of who we believe to be at fault anywhere along the way)

[fordman]

Starting to regret asking the question? 

again seems like it may just be too hard, sounds simple though, devil in the detail.

[Sonic]

Starting to regret asking the question? 

again seems like it may just be too hard, sounds simple though, devil in the detail.

that is prob a fair thing to ask fman! LOL!!

there will never be a consensus on it I think... but there does have to be ONE clear way of doing it that is safe for all drivers and that the supporters of the circus can clearly understand.

we do not have that at present.