FIA stop safety car trick

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by iGav, Sep 26, 2005.

  1. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
  2. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #2
    A needed rule but it'll be difficult to enforce. What is "unacceptably slow". Could Kimi not claim that as there were lots of cars entering and exiting their pit boxes that he needed to drive slower than normal to ensure safety?
     
  3. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
  4. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #4
    Nope... the volume of cars in the pitlane makes no difference, there's enough space for 2 cars to be lined up in a pit box. And a car shouldn't be released by the team until it is safe to do so. Kimi should have queued up behind Montoya and waited, not crawl in to the pits disadvantaging every other driver behind him because he didn't want to queue up and wait.

    What Kimi and McLaren did was unsporting and unfair to the other drivers and teams.

    What really irked though, is McLarens comments after the Spa regarding Fisi's warm-up lap during qualifying. Unbelievable.... especially after McLarens and Kimi's tactics during qualifying for the German GP :mad:
     
  5. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #5
    what they should do would be to drop the speed control altogether. if the cars are not allowed to drive faster than certain limit and not allowed to drive slower than certain limit, then why not FIA decide who gets to win? of course the last comment was sarcasm, but these kinds of limits are just not formula-one at all. yes, it's safer to have slower cars in the pit lane, but there should at least be a some kind of "grace" tolerance which would allow one slight (few percentages) error every now and then, and only be penalised if one drives few percentages over very often. and even then it (imho) should be a grid penalty to next race quali. that is, if the speed limit in fact is because of safety -- and if it's because of occasional penalties make the sport more interesting, then they have no valid reason to introduce a lower speed limit, as what kimi did certainly was exciting and something not many guessed beforehand.

    and back to topic -- hell, why not drop the safety car altogether. if the track is dangerous, why not stop the race and have good time to clean the track safely, and then start again from the same positions. after all, there's no reason for safety car to go out for one lap, and it is even more stupid if it's out like ten laps or more. the safety car only messes up with everyone's race strategies anyway and there's nothing to see during the safety car period when drivers cannot change positions; so why not just go to pits and restart. if the safety car on the other hand exists because FIA wants more exciting races due to everyone having to rewrite their strategies, then what kimi did was just what FIA wanted: he made race strategies more exciting.

    that said, i do admit that some of the F1 rules are just very stupid. like for example how schumi was once given a drive-trough (or was it stop-and-go?) penalty and the regulations allowed him to take the penalty AFTER THE FINISH LINE taking the victory. it's just stupid that one is given a penalty that can be ignored. who was the brick that thought a penalised driver should get three(ish) laps to decide when to be penalised? of course it should be right away, that's common sense. and there's more, but i really should end ranting now... ;)
     
  6. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #6
    JF,
    whatever rule you put, people will push the edges and find loopholes.
    if you give whatever 'grace' room, everybody will use the limit of that, so that makes no sense (not to mention that what kimi did was obviously deliberate and quite smart, if you subscribe 'to the win at all costs' school)

    when loopholes are found, and are clearly a way to 'legally cheat', like in the case of kimi-slow-n-go, the BAR tank debacle, or the shumi episode you are referring to, it is only right that they are closed by FIA.

    as far as the safety car goes, no-one is excited about safety car laps (including FIA), but it's there because it IS the safest and fairer way to deal with accidents.
    It still represents a compromise, but opposite to what you claim, a new start would be much less safe, much more spectacular and much more likely to "mess up" with the standing order and strategies. Only it would be also less fair to those in front who legitimately gained their current positions.
     
  7. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #7
    Yes, that was pretty lame. Evey season people find a way to circumvent the rules to their advantage, but holding up the rest of the cars was cynical and definitely bad sportsmanship.

    McLaren's complaint about Fisi was stupid - to me it just sounded like a veiled complaint about having to qualify and then race without changing the fuel load.
     
  8. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #8
    It was, especially when one considers what Kimi did at turn 1 after his hot lap at Hockenheim to screw Alonso over :eek:
     
  9. Jon'sLightBulbs macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    I understand that you're addressing how arbitrary FIA rule formulation can become. But safety cars are the best method of ensuring that nobody gains a fair advantage after an accident for two reasons.

    1. One very important role for the safety car leading slow laps is to keep the race cars in motion so that cooling air continues to flow to the radiators. A stationary F1 car, especially after several hot laps, is very prone to overheating. Leaving the cars at idle before placing them at the start line again while waiting for accident clean-up would be disastrous.

    2. A second start would result in more crashes after a crash on the track has just taken place. Starts are characterized by especially fast moving and jockeying for position. They are viewed as prime passing opportunities, and often result in crashes involving several cars (take yesterday's crash between Coulthard and the two Williams, i.e..) These crashes are the last thing the governing body wants after another crash has just occured on the track.

    Keeping the cars at operating temperature, and preventing more accidents.
     
  10. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #10
    the sense of the suggestion would be to make such penalty decisions off the track and not mess up the competition. if there's some percentage of allowance, the wise team keeps the limit where it is now but only not suffers from the penalty should they once in a season drive 80.001kmph to the speed trap. the penalties could also be a lot stronger, affect future races and discount earnt points if they may, but a drive-through penalty during the race is just not the way i like speeds to be controlled.

    no, it's not. the safest way would be the safety car to come out and lead the cars slowly to the pits. race would be stopped during the time it's unsafe to drive at race speed, and then re-started from the positions two laps before the accident. (this would be like the same rule that if race was stopped early by red flags, then the final results are taken from two laps before the flag. kimi suffered from this in brazil 2003, lost two points and one can speculate that it cost a wdc title.)

    a new start could be regulated to be a flying one, meaning that safety car would lead race cars out of the pits and then drive back to the pits after such "warm-up lap". just the same way they do now. i'm just saying that it's completely insane to keep race cars running on the track so slowly if the track is indeed in such a dangerous condition that safety car needs to go out. and it is in fact a safety hazard in itself to force tyre and brake temperatures to drop, which happens if the safety car is out longer than one lap.
     
  11. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #11
    It would've made no difference to the final standings... Schu's superior strike rate of 6-2 on equal (93) points would've won him the title anyway, and rightly so... the changes to the points system created an artifically close season that year.

    So exactly what difference would your suggestion make? none really when you think about it. ;)
     
  12. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #12
    it would stop the cars into the pits during the safety risk, and either everyone would be allowed to or denied to change the car during that time. it would also eliminate the possibility of crashing due to cool tyre tempereatures as the tyres could be re-heated in the pits.

    safety car periods are frustrating, because it brings far too great possibilities to screw the whole race. i mean, come on, safety cars should be there because of safety and not because of suddenly changing race tactics. and as kimi demonstrated, there can also possibly be team-orders involved ;)
     
  13. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #13
    I quite like the lottery that the safety car offers up. :) even if it does sometimes go against my team (Spa '04 for example).

    The problems you'd have though with your suggestion, is that whilst it's fine to reheat the tyres in their blankets in the pits (which is way below their race temp already) they'd lose that temp immediately during the warm up lap behind the safety car again, and the brakes would be further out of their operating range than had they just kept lapping behind the safety car, whilst continuing to carry out tyre and brake warming maneuvers.

    I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here?

    I do think they could get away with returning to pre-'94 (I think that was the year the safety car was introduced) where the lead race car controls the pace, I can't imagine it being that much more unsafe to do this.

    With todays pit-to-car communications, and track telemetry positions reporting the cars positions on track, the team could remind the lead driver as they approach the problem location (also with the aid of waved flags) slow the pack down (maybe all have to switch to pit limiter) so as not to pose a risk to the track workers and then increase the pace for the rest of the lap once they were out of the danger zone.

    Overtaking would be allowed during this time (except within the flagged zone), but race speeds could be maintained for the rest of the lap to help keep tyre and brake temps in the range until everything was okay to green flag and continue the race.

    In a way it was inspired to do what he did, he was after all fighting a championship at the time, but it was massively unsporting... when other teams frequently queue cars up in similar situations.
     
  14. steve_hill4 macrumors 68000

    steve_hill4

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Location:
    NG9, England
    #14
    Well, the race did not need to be stopped before Alonso crashed in that race, things were still under control. When he did crash, the race was stopped and the winner was the driver leading two laps before the incident, which was Fisichella. Seems fair to me.
     
  15. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #15
    The start is often one of the most exciting parts of the race, so I really like restarts. :)

    What Kimi did has now been banned, and while I'm sure there are loopholes in the rule, it won't be possible to be as blatant as Kimi was again.
     
  16. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #16
    one possibility would be to block refuel during safety-car periods, but what about cars that actually NEED to refuel? (of course I would also eliminate re-fueling altogether or limit to 2 laps worth of fuel as max refueling per stop, to avoid cars stopping without enough fuel to finish)
     
  17. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #17
    meh..how about taking everything out ? i found it a pretty smart move .. they are called racing _teams_ after all

    and this ban even includes "driving slow" on the _track_ :rolleyes:
     
  18. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #18
    It's a pretty vaguely worded rule, and gives the FIA the ability to define "driving slow".
     
  19. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #19
    i hate vague rules, and rules in excess. today the F1 has way too much rules and regulations, and sometimes it seems finding loopholes is the way to get the competitive performance. schumi proved that point in 1994-1995 very clearly.

    in my opinion, everything where pits are involved are a major PITA and should be eliminated. back to cars that can drive the whole race distance without refuelling and tyre changes, and cars that can be started without a pit crew. i mean, back to the time when innovations were allowed.

    (yes, it's a kind of safety risk to have such a fuel load, but if regular winning race strategy would be zero pit stops, then the drivers would actually have to overtake to change positions. i'd like that.)
     
  20. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #20
    I can't ever see there being a problem myself, I could understand if we were talking about 2 or 3 kph, but Kimi was way, way below that, even on the entrance to and before the pit limiter line, he was crawling up the pitlane... had it have been Schu behind him, and he was fighting Kimi for the WDC, I'd have put money on Schu nailing him for the position on the entrance to the pit lane. ;)

    But let's not get confused here, this clarification was to stop unsportsman type behaviour like what kimi and McLaren did at Spa, pulling a similar move on track wouldn't have any benefit because the cars behind would just overtake... even somewhere like Monaco.
     
  21. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #21
    I agree, my comment about it being vague is meant to highlight the fact that the ball is in the FIA's court to decide. They could come up with a pretty liberal interpretation in order satisfy their desire to penalize unsporting behavior.

    Personally I think that engineered finishes are crap. But as long as there is something to gain from it teams will do it.
     
  22. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #22
    That's pretty much the way the FIA works, usually if a team is in doubt it seeks clarification, or if the FIA feel a rule has been... not violated as such, then they'll clarify. By keeping relatively loose wording, it still allows for a degree of flexibility and innovation.

    Problem is, we don't know the exact wording of the clarification to the teams.

    I also find it a little bizarre that the F1 'political threads' generate more discourse than the actual F1 race threads. :eek: :p
     
  23. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #23
    Maybe the FIA didn't make it any clearer than that to the teams on purpose, in order to make them a little more cautious about doing something questionable.

    I know, go look at the dismally short thread for the last GP, where Schuey was dethroned and a new Champion (the youngest ever) clinched his title despite being the third fastest guy in F1 at the moment...
     
  24. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #24
    'tis odd... I wasn't sure whether to start a new Alonso thread or not at the time, in the end I figured that any comments would be integrated into the Brazilian GP Thread.

    I think Kimi winning it would probably have been more popular, he's put in some stellar drives this season, especially in qualifying... I don't know why, but Alonso winning it... has in a way been almost anti-climatic, I don't mean that disrespectfully though.
     
  25. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #25
    It's because he really never fought for it...He was never in big trouble after his early string of victories. He was solid, consistent, and unspectacular in the sense that he played the numbers game very well.

    For me, the most exciting moment of the season was Alonso holding off Schuey at Imola - Schumacher could have won that race if he was chasing Button or Villenueve or Coulthard, but Alonso did not crack. Brilliant. I think that next season will show whether he can fight like that all the time.

    Kimi was exciting because he was fighting for the championship, had heartstoppingly bad luck, and his boring demeanor contrasts sharply with spectacular driving skills and wild tales of off-track partying.
     

Share This Page