After the Nico Rosberg debacle last weekend, and the Renaultgate scandal with Piquet, can't F1 review the need for the Safety Car coming out after almost every crash? Personally, I get very cheesed off with seeing a good race reset to a base-line every time the SC comes out; a driver knocks himself out building up a good lead only to find he's back to square one with the whole field a car's length behind him.
Don't get me wrong, if a driver is stranded across the track with cars approaching at racing speed, then a SC is definitely necessary. But these are professional GP drivers that should know how to reduce their speed under a waved yellow with the threat of a DQ if they pass each other, and avoid debris on the track, without having to follow a grown-up in a real car to make sure they behave.
And yes, if marshalls are on track there are some serious safety concerns that perhaps needs a SC, but not if the car is well off-track in the gravel. And in these days of advanced telemetry, can't the FIA impose a speed restriction on all cars on track whether they like it or not?
Maybe I'm off-beam, but they do seem to roll out the SC for almost any slight bump these days; I come from an era when it was down to the driver to use a bit of common sense around the crashes. I can't remember any serious collisions involving existing shunts. And I don't recall seeing a Safety Bike in MotoGP ever...
Full Version: Is there an argument for losing the Safety Car?
The cars already have the technology onboard to limit their speeds, IMO they should replace the SC with that, forced speed limit, give race control a button that activates the limiters on all cars and be done with it, nobody gains nobody loses
QUOTE (F3Wrench @ Oct 6 2009, 15:51) 
After the Nico Rosberg debacle last weekend, and the Renaultgate scandal with Piquet, can't F1 review the need for the Safety Car coming out after almost every crash? Personally, I get very cheesed off with seeing a good race reset to a base-line every time the SC comes out; a driver knocks himself out building up a good lead only to find he's back to square one with the whole field a car's length behind him.
Don't get me wrong, if a driver is stranded across the track with cars approaching at racing speed, then a SC is definitely necessary. But these are professional GP drivers that should know how to reduce their speed under a waved yellow with the threat of a DQ if they pass each other, and avoid debris on the track, without having to follow a grown-up in a real car to make sure they behave.
And yes, if marshalls are on track there are some serious safety concerns that perhaps needs a SC, but not if the car is well off-track in the gravel. And in these days of advanced telemetry, can't the FIA impose a speed restriction on all cars on track whether they like it or not?
Maybe I'm off-beam, but they do seem to roll out the SC for almost any slight bump these days; I come from an era when it was down to the driver to use a bit of common sense around the crashes. I can't remember any serious collisions involving existing shunts. And I don't recall seeing a Safety Bike in MotoGP ever...
Don't get me wrong, if a driver is stranded across the track with cars approaching at racing speed, then a SC is definitely necessary. But these are professional GP drivers that should know how to reduce their speed under a waved yellow with the threat of a DQ if they pass each other, and avoid debris on the track, without having to follow a grown-up in a real car to make sure they behave.
And yes, if marshalls are on track there are some serious safety concerns that perhaps needs a SC, but not if the car is well off-track in the gravel. And in these days of advanced telemetry, can't the FIA impose a speed restriction on all cars on track whether they like it or not?
Maybe I'm off-beam, but they do seem to roll out the SC for almost any slight bump these days; I come from an era when it was down to the driver to use a bit of common sense around the crashes. I can't remember any serious collisions involving existing shunts. And I don't recall seeing a Safety Bike in MotoGP ever...
We all saw how able the drivers are to reduce their speed when yellow is waved in qualifying Suzuka.... Safety car is neede to bunch up the cars and give the marshalls time to do their jobs in a as safe as possible environment.
With salaries/sponsoring of sometime 30+ Million dollars or the perception that team's (or driver's) future is at stake, the foot sometimes refuse to let go, it seems. 
QUOTE (Ruud de la Rosa @ Oct 6 2009, 15:06)
Safety car is neede to bunch up the cars...
My point exactly; how would you feel as a driver with a sick engine or worn tyres, with enough lead for the remaining laps to get across the line 1st, and find your lead has been wiped out?
Melbourne Park has been calling for the SC to be lost for some time.
The technology is there and it should be possible to keep relative race distances without the whole field bunching up.
The technology is there and it should be possible to keep relative race distances without the whole field bunching up.
QUOTE (pgj @ Oct 6 2009, 16:24)
Melbourne Park has been calling for the SC to be lost for some time.
The technology is there and it should be possible to keep relative race distances without the whole field bunching up.
The technology is there and it should be possible to keep relative race distances without the whole field bunching up.
They only have 3 option now. yellow flag, safety car, or red flag.
nobody seems to lift when a yellow is shown, only prevents people from overtaking because otherwise they get penalised
sf is to bunch up the field to enable a safe clean up
red flag for when the pile up or circumstances are too severe.
Don't ban the SC but maybe introduce an extra option in between the SC and the yellow flag to give the stewards more options?
Bunching the field does assist with safety though. It gives the marshalls a 2 minutes out of every 2:30 (or so) in which the track is entirely theirs.
In terms of "fairness" re: Rosberg, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to have a "release" system from the pits. The ECU knows how much time it's telling the drivers to add to their lap time for safety reasons. If when a car pits under the SC, on arrival at the pit exit they are held for that length of time before they can exit the pits, wouldn't that nulify the advantage from pitting under the SC?
Still doesn't solve the problem of hard earned leads eroded, but at least reduces the number of opportunities for "unfairness".
In terms of "fairness" re: Rosberg, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to have a "release" system from the pits. The ECU knows how much time it's telling the drivers to add to their lap time for safety reasons. If when a car pits under the SC, on arrival at the pit exit they are held for that length of time before they can exit the pits, wouldn't that nulify the advantage from pitting under the SC?
Still doesn't solve the problem of hard earned leads eroded, but at least reduces the number of opportunities for "unfairness".
The old timers can correct me, but in the past differentials were credited to the drivers, if memory serves me. It was fair, but confusing like ****. You saw a car following another on the track, while on the board it was 15 sec ahead because that was differential before flag dropped...
QUOTE (MiPe @ Oct 6 2009, 15:51)
The old timers can correct me, but in the past differentials were credited to the drivers, if memory serves me. It was fair, but confusing like ****. You saw a car following another on the track, while on the board it was 15 sec ahead because that was differential before flag dropped...
IIRC that happened in the case of a red flagged race that was then restarted. Hill won in Japan ('95?) like that, I believe? Schumacher was ahead on track, but not sufficiently far enough ahead to take the win.
Or just get back to what the yellow flag originally was for: slow down and let the marshalls do their work!
In the old days with more cars and graveltraps (!) there were many more cars that needed to be moved during the race. Yet they rarely brought out the SC. Take a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DSS2gs3ohY
Noway that would happen these days. Now everytime a car is stuck we are wondering wether the SC will come out. That is just wrong.
Of course the marshalls have to be safe. But apart from Alonso at Interlagos, i cannot remember an incident where a stricken car was hit. The past has proven it is safe for marshalls to do their job, as long as the drivers respect the yellow. Perhaps these days drivers assume there is going to be a SC if a marshall is near the track, and thus ignore every yellow flag. If it was serious, the SC would have been called.
Get back to respecting the yellow, and rid us from the 10 SC periods a year!
In the old days with more cars and graveltraps (!) there were many more cars that needed to be moved during the race. Yet they rarely brought out the SC. Take a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DSS2gs3ohY
Noway that would happen these days. Now everytime a car is stuck we are wondering wether the SC will come out. That is just wrong.
Of course the marshalls have to be safe. But apart from Alonso at Interlagos, i cannot remember an incident where a stricken car was hit. The past has proven it is safe for marshalls to do their job, as long as the drivers respect the yellow. Perhaps these days drivers assume there is going to be a SC if a marshall is near the track, and thus ignore every yellow flag. If it was serious, the SC would have been called.
Get back to respecting the yellow, and rid us from the 10 SC periods a year!
QUOTE (jk @ Oct 6 2009, 17:01)
Or just get back to what the yellow flag originally was for: slow down and let the marshalls do their work!
In the old days with more cars and graveltraps (!) there were many more cars that needed to be moved during the race. Yet they rarely brought out the SC. Take a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DSS2gs3ohY
Noway that would happen these days. Now everytime a car is stuck we are wondering wether the SC will come out. That is just wrong.
Of course the marshalls have to be safe. But apart from Alonso at Interlagos, i cannot remember an incident where a stricken car was hit. The past has proven it is safe for marshalls to do their job, as long as the drivers respect the yellow. Perhaps these days drivers assume there is going to be a SC if a marshall is near the track, and thus ignore every yellow flag. If it was serious, the SC would have been called.
Get back to respecting the yellow, and rid us from the 10 SC periods a year!
In the old days with more cars and graveltraps (!) there were many more cars that needed to be moved during the race. Yet they rarely brought out the SC. Take a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DSS2gs3ohY
Noway that would happen these days. Now everytime a car is stuck we are wondering wether the SC will come out. That is just wrong.
Of course the marshalls have to be safe. But apart from Alonso at Interlagos, i cannot remember an incident where a stricken car was hit. The past has proven it is safe for marshalls to do their job, as long as the drivers respect the yellow. Perhaps these days drivers assume there is going to be a SC if a marshall is near the track, and thus ignore every yellow flag. If it was serious, the SC would have been called.
Get back to respecting the yellow, and rid us from the 10 SC periods a year!
Drivers just don't have as much respect for safety as did did in 1994. they feel untouchable, that's just the disadvantage of the more safer cars. They need to punish drivers harder for ignoring yellow.
QUOTE (jk @ Oct 7 2009, 00:01)
Or just get back to what the yellow flag originally was for: slow down and let the marshalls do their work!
In the old days with more cars and graveltraps (!) there were many more cars that needed to be moved during the race. Yet they rarely brought out the SC. Take a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DSS2gs3ohY
Noway that would happen these days. Now everytime a car is stuck we are wondering wether the SC will come out. That is just wrong.
Of course the marshalls have to be safe. But apart from Alonso at Interlagos, i cannot remember an incident where a stricken car was hit. The past has proven it is safe for marshalls to do their job, as long as the drivers respect the yellow. Perhaps these days drivers assume there is going to be a SC if a marshall is near the track, and thus ignore every yellow flag. If it was serious, the SC would have been called.
Get back to respecting the yellow, and rid us from the 10 SC periods a year!
Indy (later CART) had several really nasty incidents hiting each other. Once (I think Tracy) put it into a wall, was already stationary, and someone else then just ram him from behind, climed on the top, and skid over the cockip and above helmet under decent speed. Which was a reason why the stupid drivers should remain seated after accident for a while, as that is safest place on the track, instead hop out, play with a steering wheel, and dance away. In the old days with more cars and graveltraps (!) there were many more cars that needed to be moved during the race. Yet they rarely brought out the SC. Take a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DSS2gs3ohY
Noway that would happen these days. Now everytime a car is stuck we are wondering wether the SC will come out. That is just wrong.
Of course the marshalls have to be safe. But apart from Alonso at Interlagos, i cannot remember an incident where a stricken car was hit. The past has proven it is safe for marshalls to do their job, as long as the drivers respect the yellow. Perhaps these days drivers assume there is going to be a SC if a marshall is near the track, and thus ignore every yellow flag. If it was serious, the SC would have been called.
Get back to respecting the yellow, and rid us from the 10 SC periods a year!
JV T-bone a driver under yellow on an oval... things do happen quickly when a driver has miliseconds to make decisions (or react?). Having said that, I would get rid of SC as well.
Absolutely, but it's drowned out by the argument for keeping it: Televi$$$ion.
The rules introduced this year with a reference time and the delta display for the driver are fine with me.
The only problem is that Rosberg was not penalised, when IMHO he should have been.
The only problem is that Rosberg was not penalised, when IMHO he should have been.
QUOTE (Dunder @ Oct 6 2009, 11:50)
The rules introduced this year with a reference time and the delta display for the driver are fine with me.
The only problem is that Rosberg was not penalised, when IMHO he should have been.
The only problem is that Rosberg was not penalised, when IMHO he should have been.
Getting off topic here, but isn't that simply a case of the event being cause by a *standard* piece of equipment *forced* upon the teams thus outside of Williams or Rosberg control?
If the drivers could respect double waved yellows, we wouldn't need the safety car.
But they can't so we do.
The other alternative is red flags and 30 minute breaks like in the old days. No thanks.
But they can't so we do.
The other alternative is red flags and 30 minute breaks like in the old days. No thanks.
No, it serves a purpose and with idiots like Jaime Alguersuari and Buemi around. They definately need to stay.
The safety car is completely unnecessary and they have the technology on the cars to achieve the same thing already. The first lap will be the same as now. Each driver has a bogey time appear on his dash. As he crosses the s/f (or pit out) line, a preset time is displayed for the next lap. Repeat until the end of the caution. Restart the race with the time gaps maintained. Any time drivers lose by being slower than the bogey time is their own fault.
Safe, because drivers can exercise due caution where necessary, and drive quickly where acceptable to keep tyres warm. There is no new technology to be developed. Everything is already on the cars and track. The cost of implementation would be minimal. It will allow for drivers to maintain the fruits of their hard work, and pit strategy will not be destroyed by an untimely "safety car" period.
Safe, because drivers can exercise due caution where necessary, and drive quickly where acceptable to keep tyres warm. There is no new technology to be developed. Everything is already on the cars and track. The cost of implementation would be minimal. It will allow for drivers to maintain the fruits of their hard work, and pit strategy will not be destroyed by an untimely "safety car" period.
I'd say it's best keeping it. Do we really need F1 cars dodging the medical car and an ambulance because of no SC? No, all it takes is an F1 car coming round a blind corner, blinded by spray (if its wet), and hitting the medical car/ambulance, even if they're not going that fast, and we have something far worse. If the medical car/ambulance are needed, that's definitely a reason for keeping the SC in my opinion, especially if there's alot of debris etc in the middle of the track as well.
I'd rather have a SC then a red flagged race with a restart and the winner being calculated from aggregated times.
With SC at least you know that the guy who first took the checkered flag is the winner.
With SC at least you know that the guy who first took the checkered flag is the winner.
No thanks. The racing is bad enough with it, never mind without it.
No, most races this season, Ive been hoping for a SC to spice up the mostly processional affairs we have all witnessed during the season.
Obeying yellow flags is easily achievable - make penalties draconian.
Besides the classic flags they have yellow warning lights on track side and on the steering wheel. No excuses are acceptable.
Besides the classic flags they have yellow warning lights on track side and on the steering wheel. No excuses are acceptable.
QUOTE (F3Wrench @ Oct 6 2009, 16:17)
My point exactly; how would you feel as a driver with a sick engine or worn tyres, with enough lead for the remaining laps to get across the line 1st, and find your lead has been wiped out?
That's not a valid reason to remove the safety car simply because safety should always come before competition. Then there's of course the slight fact that this is by complete chance and as such it usually corrects itself in terms of 'fairness' over the course of time.
QUOTE (Garagiste @ Oct 6 2009, 17:20)
Absolutely, but it's drowned out by the argument for keeping it: Televi$$$ion.
That may well have been the argument it was adopted in the first place, but I think the argument for keeping it would be safety as having a 'safety car' is the safest option.
Probably the most important reason of the safety car is that it bunches up the field. That means that the marshals and medical crews can work uninterrupted for 2-3 minutes at the time without having to dodge cars coming past. Without it their job had been a lot more dangerous.
QUOTE (stevvy1986 @ Oct 6 2009, 18:28)
I'd say it's best keeping it. Do we really need F1 cars dodging the medical car and an ambulance because of no SC? No, all it takes is an F1 car coming round a blind corner, blinded by spray (if its wet), and hitting the medical car/ambulance, even if they're not going that fast, and we have something far worse. If the medical car/ambulance are needed, that's definitely a reason for keeping the SC in my opinion, especially if there's alot of debris etc in the middle of the track as well.
IMO, the chances of a serious coming together is most likely in the first few seconds after a big shunt, long before they have even started the SC's engine; and after some monumental accidents (Kubica in Canada in 2007 for instance) I've seen the following drivers taking incredibly fast evasive action through the wreckage at racing speed. So only a complete muppet would be likely to hit an ambulance or medical car (yes, even Buemi), and I actually think sometimes following a SC may make drivers less alert rather than increasing safety.
QUOTE (D A @ Oct 6 2009, 20:31)
Probably the most important reason of the safety car is that it bunches up the field. That means that the marshals and medical crews can work uninterrupted for 2-3 minutes at the time without having to dodge cars coming past. Without it their job had been a lot more dangerous.
Yeah that's a major plus point for the safety car. With the field spread out, they wouldn't get the huge gaps in the traffic that they do now to clear debris. The safety car is the most reliable and safe way of neutralising a dangerous situation. We're yet to see an accident scene being worsened by a safety car.
But to be honest, I wish the red flags were used at the start of the race more.. a safety car on lap 1 is the single biggest race ruiner for spectators, considering that about 90-100% of passing is done on the first few laps. Later in the race, fair enough, but a 'SC' situation on the first few laps should be a red flag and a full restart like it used to.
QUOTE (VresiBerba @ Oct 6 2009, 20:20)
That's not a valid reason to remove the safety car simply because safety should always come before competition.
Oh I see. OK, cars restricted to a 100mph speed limit, surrounded by huge rubber bumpers, and all run-off areas no less than half a mile long; that should make it REALLY safe. Or
maybe the drivers should all drive the cars remotely from their PS3 consoles using robot drivers...
QUOTE (F3Wrench @ Oct 6 2009, 20:39)
IMO, the chances of a serious coming together is most likely in the first few seconds after a big shunt, long before they have even started the SC's engine;
The SC and Medical Car have their engines running throughout the race if memory serves.
QUOTE (F3Wrench @ Oct 6 2009, 15:39)
So only a complete muppet would be likely to hit an ambulance or medical car (yes, even Buemi), and I actually think sometimes following a SC may make drivers less alert rather than increasing safety.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvJJ70CRBrY
Bogus full course yellow for invisible debrie on track will infect F1 soon, NASCAR is spreading virus like hell
QUOTE (crashgate @ Oct 6 2009, 22:44)
Bogus full course yellow for invisible debrie on track will infect F1 soon, NASCAR is spreading virus like hell
Right on crashgate.
This is a blight on the sport imported from the USofA and needs to be adapted to a sensible dployment only. The SC should be only rarely seen - today it's part of the strategy teams have to consider "what if the SC?".I wasn't aware until Suzuka of the "Delta Time" - why can't that technology be used with local yellow? A really conservative but set time for a sector allows for the safe operation of crash crews. I suspect that some of the eagerness to deploy is to create greater "spectacle" for the "fans". There should be access for rescue equipment to all likely crash areas for a track to be approved which simply leaves the safe passage of cars at reduced speed for many of the off track strandings. Where debris is on the track then there is probably no choice but it needs to be clearly identified as debris, not some tear-off or similar, glistening in the sun.
QUOTE (Frank Tuesday @ Oct 6 2009, 17:24)
The safety car is completely unnecessary and they have the technology on the cars to achieve the same thing already. The first lap will be the same as now. Each driver has a bogey time appear on his dash. As he crosses the s/f (or pit out) line, a preset time is displayed for the next lap. Repeat until the end of the caution. Restart the race with the time gaps maintained. Any time drivers lose by being slower than the bogey time is their own fault.
Safe, because drivers can exercise due caution where necessary, and drive quickly where acceptable to keep tyres warm. There is no new technology to be developed. Everything is already on the cars and track. The cost of implementation would be minimal. It will allow for drivers to maintain the fruits of their hard work, and pit strategy will not be destroyed by an untimely "safety car" period.
Safe, because drivers can exercise due caution where necessary, and drive quickly where acceptable to keep tyres warm. There is no new technology to be developed. Everything is already on the cars and track. The cost of implementation would be minimal. It will allow for drivers to maintain the fruits of their hard work, and pit strategy will not be destroyed by an untimely "safety car" period.
Sounds reasonable.
QUOTE (MaxScelerate @ Oct 6 2009, 22:38)
OK Max, I didn't know about that incident and Heidfeld is no muppet - although it was 2002, so he was quite new. The question is, would the presence of a SC have avoided this crash? All the preceding cars were going really slowly anyway.
QUOTE (VresiBerba @ Oct 6 2009, 12:23)
That may well have been the argument it was adopted in the first place, but I think the argument for keeping it would be safety as having a 'safety car' is the safest option.
Yeah, but it's a load of eyewash. A pileup at the first corner instantly results in a saftey car these days - when it would be safer still to red flag and restart.
But they don't, because it messes with the TV schedules.
QUOTE (MaxScelerate @ Oct 6 2009, 17:39)
Getting off topic here, but isn't that simply a case of the event being cause by a *standard* piece of equipment *forced* upon the teams thus outside of Williams or Rosberg control?
There is another thread on that incident but to my mind even if Nico/Williams are not at fault (as seems to be the case with the delta display not being available), he nonetheless went too fast and gained an advantage from doing so. That surely is not right.
Under the previous rules, you were penalised for pitting under the safety car even if running out of fuel was the alternative.
As I say IMHO Rosberg should not have been able to gain an advantage.
With the abundance of run off area's and circuit exits available i've often wondered why we have to have the whole lap under a safety car when it could peel off to let the racing continue for the rest of the lap (once all cars are safely passed the incident area). Afterall at the minute there are always at least 2 safety cars at circuit.
QUOTE (F3Wrench @ Oct 7 2009, 09:34)
OK Max, I didn't know about that incident and Heidfeld is no muppet - although it was 2002, so he was quite new. The question is, would the presence of a SC have avoided this crash? All the preceding cars were going really slowly anyway.
I agree that speed wasn't *the* factor here. Space (which two objects can't share at the same time) and decision-making, was. Had Heidfeld been following a train of cars creeping away from the marshalls he'd have followed the same line too. -- But, to be real honest, even with the Safety Car announced drivers still push as long as they think they could get away with and sh!t like that can still happen. So you're quite right that the *biggest* risks come in the first few seconds after a big shunt.
There is a pitlane speed limiter, so why not have other settings for safety? There could be three or four set speeds and drivers and pits are informed to engage setting SC2 for instance. This would limit all cars to the same speed and keep the race gaps intact. It would prevent the field from bunching. This is Melbourne Parks' proposal as I understand it.
I did a quick calculation for the top ten drivers. Subtracting each drivers time for L44 from that of L45. It gives an idea of how much pace each driver had taken off his speed. The figures show a pretty linear falling away of time as you go down the field. Plotting the results on a scatter diagram shows that there is a pretty linear decline in speed as you go down the field. the biggest variation is for cars 6, 5 and 7 who all slowed down more than rest.
It cannot determine whether Nico did speed. It does show though that he did not do a blindingly fast lap of the sort that JB had claimed.
It seems that Nico had a huge slice of luck by being on the right part of the track at exactly the right time in his strategy. It has been suggested that he made up some time because he was travelling faster in the pit-lane than the cars were travelling behind the SC. A SC speed setting would prevent this from happening if the new speed limit applied to the whole circuit including the pit-lane.
I did a quick calculation for the top ten drivers. Subtracting each drivers time for L44 from that of L45. It gives an idea of how much pace each driver had taken off his speed. The figures show a pretty linear falling away of time as you go down the field. Plotting the results on a scatter diagram shows that there is a pretty linear decline in speed as you go down the field. the biggest variation is for cars 6, 5 and 7 who all slowed down more than rest.
It cannot determine whether Nico did speed. It does show though that he did not do a blindingly fast lap of the sort that JB had claimed.
It seems that Nico had a huge slice of luck by being on the right part of the track at exactly the right time in his strategy. It has been suggested that he made up some time because he was travelling faster in the pit-lane than the cars were travelling behind the SC. A SC speed setting would prevent this from happening if the new speed limit applied to the whole circuit including the pit-lane.
QUOTE (Matt Somers @ Oct 7 2009, 16:55)
With the abundance of run off area's and circuit exits available i've often wondered why we have to have the whole lap under a safety car when it could peel off to let the racing continue for the rest of the lap (once all cars are safely passed the incident area). Afterall at the minute there are always at least 2 safety cars at circuit.
The idea of having 20+ cars belting down a track that contains one serious accident and two slowly moving cars which you can't pass makes me sick to my stomach. You haven't seen the famous WTCC safety car crash I presume?
QUOTE (Garagiste @ Oct 7 2009, 15:51)
Yeah, but it's a load of eyewash. A pileup at the first corner instantly results in a saftey car these days - when it would be safer still to red flag and restart.
But they don't, because it messes with the TV schedules.
But they don't, because it messes with the TV schedules.
All the more argument to keep the safety car and not remove it.
Bumping this because I think today's race proves beyond doubt that the SC should be banned.
The timing of the SC effectively gave the race to Vettel. Hamilton was stuck between a drivethrough that dropped him miles behind or taking a pitstop with Alonso that would have put them even further behind. No chance of anyone challenging Vettel after that.
The penalty shenanigans at least ensured that Hamilton did not lose his earned position of second. Unfortunately it did cost Ferrari - from third and fourth to nowhere. Simply because the timing of sending it out was appalling.
If the track conditions require the cars to be slowed, do it via the ECU. If it is too dangerous for that, red-flag it. Why destroy the racing?
And another ancillary issue from today. 10 cars are/were being investigated for safety car regulations breaches. The chap who caused the SC to come out with a not untypical dumbass bit of driving seems to have got off scot free. Work THAT one out.
The timing of the SC effectively gave the race to Vettel. Hamilton was stuck between a drivethrough that dropped him miles behind or taking a pitstop with Alonso that would have put them even further behind. No chance of anyone challenging Vettel after that.
The penalty shenanigans at least ensured that Hamilton did not lose his earned position of second. Unfortunately it did cost Ferrari - from third and fourth to nowhere. Simply because the timing of sending it out was appalling.
If the track conditions require the cars to be slowed, do it via the ECU. If it is too dangerous for that, red-flag it. Why destroy the racing?
And another ancillary issue from today. 10 cars are/were being investigated for safety car regulations breaches. The chap who caused the SC to come out with a not untypical dumbass bit of driving seems to have got off scot free. Work THAT one out.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.