98 replies to this topic

[Realyn]

5 fewer laps behind the Safety Car and everyone would have changed their strategy. Simply saying "Kimi would have overtaken Vettel in those extra laps" is overly simplistic.

stop making sense

[Clatter]

5 fewer laps behind the Safety Car and everyone would have changed their strategy. Simply saying "Kimi would have overtaken Vettel in those extra laps" is overly simplistic.

True, but it would be 5 extra racing laps which is what we want to see.

[Kobasmashi]

it came back because having backmarkers among the frontrunners at the restart ruined "the show". Search back a couple of years and there were people whining because their driver was "stuck" behind Caterham at a restart and they were screaming from the rooftops how unfair it was and how their driver was robbed.

Hmm, I never thought it was an undue problem to have lapped cars in the pack. The majority of the field still gained on the car in front because of the safety car, even with a car or 2 in between.

[Kalmake]

Yes, I don't see any need why they should wait for the unlapped cars to be bunched back. They don't even need to unlap, I say. Let them restart with whatever unlapped cars they may have. It is all artificial anyway wanting all the lead-lap cars to engage in a battle forced by SC. They all would anyway had to get around the 'to-be-unlapped' car in normal race circumstance.

So that the drivers don't take unnecessary risks when passing the queue.

I don't like the unlapping rule because it takes too much time. I would just put the lapped cars behind everyone else. Blue flag them before restart.

[EthanM]

So that the drivers don't take unnecessary risks when passing the queue.

I don't like the unlapping rule because it takes too much time. I would just put the lapped cars behind everyone else. Blue flag them before restart.

Move back takes longer to orchestrate actually,epecially when you have some cars that are 1 lap behind, other cars that are 2 laps behind, and all those are scattered in terms of track position. Plus there's the risk that if say P1 lapped P11 before the SC came out, but P11 was 3 seconds behind P10, if you don't rebuild the running order, P11 will end up one full lap behind P10 from a timing perspective. Because P10 was on the lead lap when the SC came out while P11 wasn't.

[Realyn]

Move back takes longer to orchestrate actually,epecially when you have some cars that are 1 lap behind, other cars that are 2 laps behind, and all those are scattered in terms of track position. Plus there's the risk that if say P1 lapped P11 before the SC came out, but P11 was 3 seconds behind P10, if you don't rebuild the running order, P11 will end up one full lap behind P10 from a timing perspective. Because P10 was on the lead lap when the SC came out while P11 wasn't.

Plus .. live timing. Good luck with that.

[redreni]

The rule was brought back after certain top drivers complained about those slow lapped back-markers between them and the race-leader, which meant they couldn't attack the race-leader and win the races as they really deserved.
I suppose, they forgot to ask for the rule to be non-applicable in case of the lapped car being a Red Bull

Then certain top drivers should have been politely reminded that if they "really deserved" to have a crack at the leader, they would have been able to keep pace with the leader before the SC came out, and so in all likelihood there would not be lapped traffic between them and the leader under the SC. If there is lapped traffic between P1 and P2 under green flag conditions before the SC, why does that suddenly become a problem just because the SC has come out? It's not considered a problem to have laped traffic between leading cars under green flag conditions - maybe it should be? Why does the FIA not take steps to get backmarkers out of the way during normal racing under green flag conditions as well? Perhaps once a car has been lapped by the leader, to prevent him from getting in the way of cars in second, third, fourth places etc, he should be allowed to take a massive shortcut that allows him to do like a 20 second lap, and get himself back up close to the leaders? Where does this end? If you're lapped, you're lapped for a reason and you should stay lapped unlesss you are quick enough to unlap yourself legitimately under green flag conditions.

And by the way, nobody is saying it's stupid to let a Red Bull unlap itself. It's stupid to let anybody unlap themselves. It was stupid to let Massa unlap himself in Brazil last year. It's just a plain daft and unfair rule.

[redreni]

it came back because having backmarkers among the frontrunners at the restart ruined "the show". Search back a couple of years and there were people whining because their driver was "stuck" behind Caterham at a restart and they were screaming from the rooftops how unfair it was and how their driver was robbed.

This is where F1 needs to be very careful not to reward whiney people, though, isn't it, whether they be biased fanboys or Christian Horner. Anyone who thinks about it for a couple of moments will realise that, if a safety car gets their favourite driver from a position where he is 20s behind the next car with two backmarkers between him and his target, to a position where he is 2 or 3 seconds behind the next car with two backmarkers between him and his target, then he has been helped considerably by the SC and in no way robbed.

Lapped traffic is part of the race and there is no remotely fair way to remove it from the equation, even if to do so would improve the show, which it wouldn't and doesn't.

Also, does Whiting seriously think nobody has noticed that he only lets the lapped cars catch up to the back of the queue if there are notable runners among them e.g. Massa at Interlagos last year or Webber today? At Silverstone they were still half a lap down when he went green. He obviously runs these races according to a make-it-up-as-you-go-along rulebook that's mostly based on what FOM's favourite teams want him to do rather than any coherent principles of fairness or sporting equity.

[redreni]

Move back takes longer to orchestrate actually,epecially when you have some cars that are 1 lap behind, other cars that are 2 laps behind, and all those are scattered in terms of track position. Plus there's the risk that if say P1 lapped P11 before the SC came out, but P11 was 3 seconds behind P10, if you don't rebuild the running order, P11 will end up one full lap behind P10 from a timing perspective. Because P10 was on the lead lap when the SC came out while P11 wasn't.

You'd have to find a way of overriding the timing and scoring system so that it would show the lapped cars as having done one more lap than they have in fact done. That way, as long as the track positions are the same as they would have been if you let the lapped cars overtake and drive around to the back of the queue, and all the lapped cars get credited with a phantom lap they never did, it would work.

Of course, the driver that doesn't get gifted a lap and finishes behind somebody who does will probably say, at the end of the race, something like "apparently he beat me but I did more laps than him; if I only had to do 67 laps instead of 68 I'd have won" and he'd be right. At least the way it's done now the lapped car has to use the fuel to make the extra lap while the SC is penalising and holding everybody else up. But even so, in most cases and in real terms, dropping the lapped cars back and then crediting them with a free lap they haven't actually done would be no more or less unfair than what happens at the moment, and it would be quicker.

[AvranaKern]

I can understand deploying the safety car, but it is ridiculous to let it stay for so long. If the idea is to let Webber catch the SC train, it is just stupid. In that case, instead of letting him unlap, they should have just asked him to slide back. What a waste of two laps just because you want to unlap a lapped car and get it to the back of the field on same lap. Pure non-sense. They better have some other reason for it.

Then he would not have been unlapped himself as he still would have been on the same lap with the others, unless you have a mathematical idea of doing it by way of a computer. That is, you can manually add 1 lap to his telemetry, making him on the same lap with the race, but then he will have that 1 lap of fuel advantage by doing so.

This rule is a knife edge. When applied, we will have to wait for ages for drivers to unlap themselves. If not, then there would be lots of out of position cars in between cars, which hinders the racing when SC is in.

[TheThirdTenor1]

Move back takes longer to orchestrate actually,epecially when you have some cars that are 1 lap behind, other cars that are 2 laps behind, and all those are scattered in terms of track position. Plus there's the risk that if say P1 lapped P11 before the SC came out, but P11 was 3 seconds behind P10, if you don't rebuild the running order, P11 will end up one full lap behind P10 from a timing perspective. Because P10 was on the lead lap when the SC came out while P11 wasn't.

This is the point i was trying to make, and is still being overlooked by many.

Another time when this did become a point of debate was in 2010, when Di Grassi held up Webber after the safety car restart and this put Hamilton right on his tail and eventually led to a collision between the 2 of them. I remember Horner was quite unhappy with Di Grassi.

[redreni]

Then he would not have been unlapped himself as he still would have been on the same lap with the others, unless you have a mathematical idea of doing it by way of a computer. That is, you can manually add 1 lap to his telemetry, making him on the same lap with the race, but then he will have that 1 lap of fuel advantage by doing so.

This rule is a knife edge. When applied, we will have to wait for ages for drivers to unlap themselves. If not, then there would be lots of out of position cars in between cars, which hinders the racing when SC is in.

Please can you explain to me in what way racing is hindered by the presence of lapped cars, as I don't understand?

Edited by redreni, 07 July 2013 - 22:39.

[Nonesuch]

The initial call for the safety car was understandable, though unfortunately it once again stayed out for far too long because of the ridiculous unlapping rules.

Then certain top drivers should have been politely reminded that if they "really deserved" to have a crack at the leader, they would have been able to keep pace with the leader before the SC came out, and so in all likelihood there would not be lapped traffic between them and the leader under the SC.

Agreed. I don't particularly like the idea of the safety car because of the massive distortion it causes to the legitimately gained gaps between cars, but as long as it's around I'd like it to be there solely to provide the marshals both time and safety to retrieve cars or smaller objects from the track or the run-off areas. Everything else seems unnecessary and, at times, manipulative.

[Lee Nicolle]

What was the safety car going to do? How far away are the pits from where the car rolled? LOL

Double yellow flags would have been quite sufficient.

While I did not see it, having gone to sleep again from the description it was a double yellow plus white flag.
But they have the safety car and it has to bunch up the field ah la Nascar. At least it was a far better excuse than debris, eg a piece of paper like has been pulled in Nascar.
Though the waffle about safety, 3 second tyre stops are always going to be potentially dangerous in any form of motorsport. At least Nascar has 5 stud wheels so if they miss one or two nuts there is far less chance of the wheel falling off! The Red Bull strikes against Mark, again!
Though we notice that using correct starting pressures and having the tyres on the right way has stopped tyre failures! Now they just need race tyres they can race on.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 07 July 2013 - 23:09.

[redreni]

While I did not see it, having gone to sleep again from the description it was a double yellow plus white flag.
But they have the safety car and it has to bunch up the field ah la Nascar. At least it was a far better excuse than debris, eg a piece of paper like has been pulled in Nascar.
Though the waffle about safety, 3 second tyre stops are always going to be potentially dangerous in any form of motorsport. At least Nascar has 5 stud wheels so if they miss one or two nuts there is far less chance of the wheel falling off! The Red Bull strikes against Mark, again!
Though we notice that using correct starting pressures and having the tyres on the right way has stopped tyre failures! Now they just need race tyres they can race on.

Of the six Silverstone failures five were on rear tyres, and the one front tyre failure was in all likelihood caused by debris from previous tyre failures. The rear tyres in use this weekend were of different construction, using kevlar rather than steel. So how, may I ask, do you know that it was the mandating of minimum pressures and the swapping ban that prevented further failures? Why couldn't it be the fact that the tyres aren't the same, or the fact that the track is not the same?

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

The SC was definitely the right call. In a way we should be lucky the car rolled backwards diagonally across the track rather than just straight down the hill in a straight line. As for the SC, this is the problem with the whole "lapped cars may now overtake" rule. For me, if all lapped cars have passed the SC by the end of sector 2, then the SC should be brought in at the end of that lap. If the track is safe for lapped cars to overtake and go quickly, it's safe for the SC to come in and for the race to resume. The SC was out for at least 2 laps longer than it should've been. Given Webber passed at what, turn 3, I'd have said SC in that lap. No need to wait for him to catch up to the bak of the pack because the SC is out because of a safety issue, and wanting for a car to catch the back of the pack is not a safety issue, hence it should be withdrawn at the end of the lap that the last car passes the SC (unless it's in S3, in which case I can accept 1 more lap behind the SC as you may not have enough time to give the message.

[redreni]

The SC was definitely the right call. In a way we should be lucky the car rolled backwards diagonally across the track rather than just straight down the hill in a straight line. As for the SC, this is the problem with the whole "lapped cars may now overtake" rule. For me, if all lapped cars have passed the SC by the end of sector 2, then the SC should be brought in at the end of that lap. If the track is safe for lapped cars to overtake and go quickly, it's safe for the SC to come in and for the race to resume. The SC was out for at least 2 laps longer than it should've been. Given Webber passed at what, turn 3, I'd have said SC in that lap. No need to wait for him to catch up to the bak of the pack because the SC is out because of a safety issue, and wanting for a car to catch the back of the pack is not a safety issue, hence it should be withdrawn at the end of the lap that the last car passes the SC (unless it's in S3, in which case I can accept 1 more lap behind the SC as you may not have enough time to give the message.

So by the sound of it you agree they should let the lapped cars overtake? I know James Allen thinks the same. I'm really interested in why, because I just don't get it. What's wrong with the lapped cars staying where they are until the restart?

[EthanM]

The SC was definitely the right call. In a way we should be lucky the car rolled backwards diagonally across the track rather than just straight down the hill in a straight line. As for the SC, this is the problem with the whole "lapped cars may now overtake" rule. For me, if all lapped cars have passed the SC by the end of sector 2, then the SC should be brought in at the end of that lap. If the track is safe for lapped cars to overtake and go quickly, it's safe for the SC to come in and for the race to resume. The SC was out for at least 2 laps longer than it should've been. Given Webber passed at what, turn 3, I'd have said SC in that lap. No need to wait for him to catch up to the bak of the pack because the SC is out because of a safety issue, and wanting for a car to catch the back of the pack is not a safety issue, hence it should be withdrawn at the end of the lap that the last car passes the SC (unless it's in S3, in which case I can accept 1 more lap behind the SC as you may not have enough time to give the message.

that's all good, in theory. In practice you are screwing someone, you 're just saying I don't mind screwing those people that are outside my "radar" in terms of what I watch in the race. Don't you understand that people in the back are racing too? I said it before, you can easily have a situation where the SC deploys with everybody up to p11 lapped. If you don't allow the guy in P11 to come around and catch up to the guy in P10 and instead you start the race with that guy 30-40 seconds down the road from P10 then you are screwing him out of his chance to fight for points

There's 3 ways to deal with this fairly:

a) preserve track position, nobody overtakes nobody all that happens is gaps evaporate (but like I said before, we had that and people didn't like having backmarkers among the frontrunners)

b) do what they are doing now ie rebuild the race order behind the Safety Car (but people complain it takes too long to restart the race)

or c) stop the race, record gaps, restart the race as a second part with the obvious problem that you might have dude A ahead of dude B on the road but actually half minute behind him on aggregate. Kinda what they used to do under the old red flag procedure.


none are perfect, in all cases somebody complains. Usually who complains depends upon their perception of what would benefit their team/driver in a specific situation.

[William Hunt]

Without that safety car I believe Grosjean would have won, his tyres were in much better condition as Vettel's at the time the pace car came on track, after the pace car the top 3 were on the same tyres.

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

So by the sound of it you agree they should let the lapped cars overtake? I know James Allen thinks the same. I'm really interested in why, because I just don't get it. What's wrong with the lapped cars staying where they are until the restart?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying this is the current rule and it's my opinion on it, but I really don't think it's right to waste 2 laps (like this race) waiting for a guy to come round to the back of the pack. That could've been 2 laps of racing, rather than poodling round when the track is obviously safe to go racing.

[Brother Fox]

What was the safety car going to do? How far away are the pits from where the car rolled? LOL

Double yellow flags would have been quite sufficient.

Double Yellows? Like the ones Rosberg set a purple lap under last weekend? At least when the safety car is out they can back off to what they should be doing under yellows because they know they are going to be bunched, not trying to maintain a gap at a reduced pace like they do.

I thought it was ridiculous to reward Red Bull by letting Webber unlap himself and actually score points after their infraction in the pitlane.

The FIA is sending the wrong message with this.

Two wrongs dont make a right. The rules are there and they have to be applied, its not a reward. It just happens that the rules suck.

[redreni]

that's all good, in theory. In practice you are screwing someone, you 're just saying I don't mind screwing those people that are outside my "radar" in terms of what I watch in the race. Don't you understand that people in the back are racing too? I said it before, you can easily have a situation where the SC deploys with everybody up to p11 lapped. If you don't allow the guy in P11 to come around and catch up to the guy in P10 and instead you start the race with that guy 30-40 seconds down the road from P10 then you are screwing him out of his chance to fight for points

There's 3 ways to deal with this fairly:

a) preserve track position, nobody overtakes nobody all that happens is gaps evaporate (but like I said before, we had that and people didn't like having backmarkers among the frontrunners)

b) do what they are doing now ie rebuild the race order behind the Safety Car (but people complain it takes too long to restart the race)

or c) stop the race, record gaps, restart the race as a second part with the obvious problem that you might have dude A ahead of dude B on the road but actually half minute behind him on aggregate. Kinda what they used to do under the old red flag procedure.


none are perfect, in all cases somebody complains. Usually who complains depends upon their perception of what would benefit their team/driver in a specific situation.

The argument against (a) lacks any legitimacy at all. The lapped cars will have been there before the SC and there is no reason why they should not continue to be there during and after the SC.

The problem you identify with not letting lapped cars catch the pack is trivial - there will also be cases where the gaps between cars are drastically reduced - why is it okay for big gaps to evaporate but not for big gaps to be created between cars that were previously close? Where's the consistency in that.

The problem with (b) is not so much the wasted time as the inherent unfairness of gifting virtually a whole lap to certain cars arbitrarily.

The problem with © is that broadcasters, casual viewers and fans at the track find it hard to follow, although it is the fairest way.

I prefer option (a) as it at least eliminates the avoidable, perverse unfairness of the current system. The elimination of legitimately earned gaps remains a problem, but it's not easy to see how to avoid that because you need to get the cars formed up behind the SC in order to provide a decent period of safety, after the queue has passed the accident scene, for marshalls to work without the problem of cars coming past them. So it's unfair but it's just part of life. Letting lapped cars overtake is just manipulating the race for the hell of it.

I think you'll find my views on this consistent over time, even if Ferrari drivers are benefiting from the current charade. To be frank, I find the fact that Massa got gifted a lap at Interlagos last year embarassing, and he should have been ashamed to walk out onto the podium. The SC came out on lap 23. If you are driving a Ferrari and you are lapped by a Force India after 20 laps, as Massa was, you should think about a career change.

[Ben Wilson]

I honestly think they should 'gift' the lapped cars a lap and let them drop to the back of the field, there is the problem that they will have a lap more fuel and better tyres than everybody else, but most cars which have been lapped could use the help.

In the odd situation where a front running car is lapped and still running strong, it could effect the result (like yesterday), but it would keep the racing flowing a lot better...

[Peat]

SC was the only call to make in that unpredictable situation.

The unlapping business is stupid though. Far faster (and safer) to make the lapped car drop to the tail and credit them a lap on Timing & Scoring. They have the technology!

[AvranaKern]

Please can you explain to me in what way racing is hindered by the presence of lapped cars, as I don't understand?

I guess 2011 Singapore GP would be a perfect example for that. Vettel was leading for the last couple of laps and SC was deployed. Button, Rosberg and some other drivers chose to pit for fresh tyres, whereas Vettel did not. There was a big big chance for them to assault Vettel after SC came in, alas were it not the fact that there were 5-6 (or more) lapped cars between Vettel and the others as a buffer. They couldn't find a chance to chase Vettel cause they were busy with the backmarkers. It had robbed the excitement towards the end of the race. That said, we would have been lost more time if those lapped cars were given permission to unlap themselves, forcing the SC stayed out for more laps than it did. That's why I call this rule as a knife edge. There has to be a balance and adding a lap to those unlapped through telemetry thingy is the most effective way for me.

At the end, surely Germans won.

Edited by ali.unal, 08 July 2013 - 08:01.

[Gilles4Ever]

Tobias Grüner F1 @tgruener
#F1 Webber lucky he got right back to the end of the field. Normally backmarkers get half a lap before restart. Some teams complained.

[SenorSjon]

it came back because having backmarkers among the frontrunners at the restart ruined "the show". Search back a couple of years and there were people whining because their driver was "stuck" behind Caterham at a restart and they were screaming from the rooftops how unfair it was and how their driver was robbed.

The 'show' is ruining F1 at the moment. Only an empty shell remains. We had this rule a few seasons back and it was binned a year later. The 'show' got boring with 2-3 extra SC laps every time.

I guess 2011 Singapore GP would be a perfect example for that. Vettel was leading for the last couple of laps and SC was deployed. Button, Rosberg and some other drivers chose to pit for fresh tyres, whereas Vettel did not. There was a big big chance for them to assault Vettel after SC came in, alas were it not the fact that there were 5-6 (or more) lapped cars between Vettel and the others as a buffer. They couldn't find a chance to chase Vettel cause they were busy with the backmarkers. It had robbed the excitement towards the end of the race. That said, we would have been lost more time if those lapped cars were given permission to unlap themselves, forcing the SC stayed out for more laps than it did. That's why I call this rule as a knife edge. There has to be a balance and adding a lap to those unlapped through telemetry thingy is the most effective way for me.

At the end, surely Germans won.

Vettel lost time passing 5-6 cars where the other dudes were not there yet (can't remember the race though). They get their gaps reduced, that should count for something.

You get a few situations which always hurt.

1) 9th place in front of leader, 10th place just lapped. After SC, the 10th place dude is bound to lose a lap to 9th place to let the field pass.
2) the leader can have a 1 minute gap with multiple backmarkers reduced to 2 seconds and no backmarkers. The leader could have used up his tires to build the gap and coast home to win the race.
3) the leader has lapped everyone up to 6th place, guaranteed points for him, but alas, a punture/wing failure/fuel saving and he loses a lot of time. Being a lap up, he is now 6th. With a SC in between, he could be dead last in 18th place or so because he lost the lap ahead.

Current rules are a big disadvantage for the leader. He not only loses his gap, but also the backmarker cushion and in case of non-race-ending trouble he could be ending at the back. The disadvantage of losing your gap should be worse enough.

Tobias Grüner F1 @tgruener
#F1 Webber lucky he got right back to the end of the field. Normally backmarkers get half a lap before restart. Some teams complained.

That was very odd.

When the SC was deployed, the car was already away. They should bunch up and 2 laps later be released... not 5-6 laps.

[mikerr]

Webber did 2-3 of his fastest laps behind the safety car:

[Diablobb81]

Yep, no SC needed:

http://www.f1fanatic...crossing-track/

Edited by Diablobb81, 08 July 2013 - 16:40.

[redreni]

I guess 2011 Singapore GP would be a perfect example for that. Vettel was leading for the last couple of laps and SC was deployed. Button, Rosberg and some other drivers chose to pit for fresh tyres, whereas Vettel did not. There was a big big chance for them to assault Vettel after SC came in, alas were it not the fact that there were 5-6 (or more) lapped cars between Vettel and the others as a buffer. They couldn't find a chance to chase Vettel cause they were busy with the backmarkers. It had robbed the excitement towards the end of the race. That said, we would have been lost more time if those lapped cars were given permission to unlap themselves, forcing the SC stayed out for more laps than it did. That's why I call this rule as a knife edge. There has to be a balance and adding a lap to those unlapped through telemetry thingy is the most effective way for me.

At the end, surely Germans won.

Right, so because of the lapped cars the balance of the race still favoured Vettel, albeit less so than if there had been no safety car. You seem to be implying that if the safety car had the effect of distorting the race to give an unfair advantage to Button and Rosberg, that would have improved the racing? I don't agree. I guess it depends if you think it is any part of the safety car's job to artificially give cars and drivers that don't deserve it a shot at victory.

[jee]

Yep, no SC needed:

http://www.f1fanatic...crossing-track/

Double waved yellow means "be prepared to stop"

Having this in mind the Safety Car call was totally wrong as there were no marshalls on the track at that moment expect the tractor driver, but the driver should be able to stop for the rolling car or the tractor.

[Diablobb81]

Double waved yellow means "be prepared to stop"

Having this in mind the Safety Car call was totally wrong as there were no marshalls on the track at that moment expect the tractor driver, but the driver should be able to stop for the rolling car or the tractor.

Yep, a stopped F1. That would end well. With the added bonus of a tractor moving between them.

[AvranaKern]

Right, so because of the lapped cars the balance of the race still favoured Vettel, albeit less so than if there had been no safety car. You seem to be implying that if the safety car had the effect of distorting the race to give an unfair advantage to Button and Rosberg, that would have improved the racing? I don't agree. I guess it depends if you think it is any part of the safety car's job to artificially give cars and drivers that don't deserve it a shot at victory.

Well, it's not that artificial. That was a risk at the time to pit and change tyres. This is racing, it is well part of the racing. How can you decide that they didn't deserve it? This is subjective at its best. You can change names to A, B, C. It doesn't matter. Racing means racing, and in that race we could have seen cars racing each other to the wire.

If you go down to route of artificialness, then SC can be called as artificial as well.

[tagy22]

How about once the cars have bunched up, all lapped cars must go through the pits and wait at the end until all the other cars have passed the pit exit. Then they can join the end of the queue and the timing can be updated.

[Vepe1995]

How about once the cars have bunched up, all lapped cars must go through the pits and wait at the end until all the other cars have passed the pit exit. Then they can join the end of the queue and the timing can be updated.

But that means they haven't done that one lap, which means they have gained an unfair advantage.

[SpaMaster]

try thinking of it from the backmarkers POV. They can potentially lose over a minute to a guy they were previously only a few seconds behind.

I agree with that as well. Then, they should at least release the lapped cars and start racing, instead of waiting them to rejoin at the back. That is ridiculous. If that is so important, let the backmarkers just slide back and give them one extra lap. The position they reach is the same no? They could either slide back or go around all the way. Still, I don't see why the backmarkers should even be moved out of the way. The cars don't deserve to fight with each other at the start anyway since they only caught up because of SC.

[nosecone]

Safety first

It is ok to deploy a SC if there is a tractor a half metre beneath the track. It was not deployed to benefit anyone, although it should have deployed earlier.
To handle this like that is better than saying after an accident "well, we should have deployed the SC".

[Vepe1995]

I agree with that as well. Then, they should at least release the lapped cars and start racing, instead of waiting them to rejoin at the back. That is ridiculous. If that is so important, let the backmarkers just slide back and give them one extra lap. The position they reach is the same no? They could either slide back or go around all the way. Still, I don't see why the backmarkers should even be moved out of the way. The cars don't deserve to fight with each other at the start anyway since they only caught up because of SC.

What?

And I believe they normally restart before the lapped cars have reached the end, but for some reason they didn't do that in this race.

[redreni]

Well, it's not that artificial. That was a risk at the time to pit and change tyres. This is racing, it is well part of the racing. How can you decide that they didn't deserve it? This is subjective at its best. You can change names to A, B, C. It doesn't matter. Racing means racing, and in that race we could have seen cars racing each other to the wire.

If you go down to route of artificialness, then SC can be called as artificial as well.

I‘m not sure that it‘s just me saying that in the circumstances you describe, which was your choice as an example, the second and third placed cars did not deserve to have an opportunity to attack the leader without first overtaking the lapped traffic. Even somebody arguing that the backmarkers should be taken out of the way to give close racing for position at the restart would, I suspect, if they were being honest, concede that it gives an unfair advantage to the second and third placed cars if they are spared having to lap cars that the leader had to lap in order to build his lead. Nobody deserves to get an unfair advantage.

The SC is unfair but not artificial. Its purpose is to provide a period of safety for marshalls and medics to work on or alongside the track. It is not artificial if it interferes with the racing only as much as is necessary to achieve that objective. As soon as you add extra tweaks and wave-bys and lucky dogs and lucky dips, it becomes artificial and offends against some very basic concepts of sporting integrity and fairness. And when you get to the stage where all lapped cars are waved by, but whether or not they are then Iallowed to catch up with the pack apparently depends on how big a name they are, Grand Prix racing has a serious problem with its integrity.

[Victor]

I honestly cannot understand how anyone can be stupid enough to even ask this question.

I have to say I find your post unnecessarily aggressive, rude and unpleasant.

[muramasa]

I'd rather wonder if Bianchi couldve gone alot deeper into runoff instead of parking just next to the track.

[CSquared]

Yep, no SC needed:

http://www.f1fanatic...crossing-track/

That's both comical and horrifying.

[redreni]

I'd rather wonder if Bianchi couldve gone alot deeper into runoff instead of parking just next to the track.

If he lost drive I don't see how he could have driven it much further than he did. You've also got to bear in mind the thing was on fire - how far could he reasonably have been expected to drive it? As soon as the engine let go he pulled off line, then as soon as he realised he had no drive he pulled off track, then when he realised it was on fire he bailed. 10 out of 10 for the driver there, as far as I'm concerned. And he's not supposed to put it in gear as some people have suggested on another thread - in fact he's required to leave it in neutral so that the marshalls can push it away. You'd think the marshalls on that particular post would be used to the gradient there and aware of the need to stay with the car to prevent it from rolling.

I know a few years ago the cars used to have small hand brakes in order to prevent creep at the start - do they still have them? If so, maybe there's an argument that the driver should have used it, but the problem then is that the marshalls wouldn't know how to release it when they wanted to move the car.

[Skinnyguy]

Are you sure drivers have to leave the car in neutral? Cars have a neutral switch on top of the nose well visible for marshalls to use it themselves. Most sensible thing is drivers leaving it with a gear engaged and track staff selecting neutral when they´re ready to move it.

[scheivlak]

Yep, no SC needed:

http://www.f1fanatic...crossing-track/

[redreni]

Are you sure drivers have to leave the car in neutral? Cars have a neutral switch on top of the nose well visible for marshalls to use it themselves. Most sensible thing is drivers leaving it with a gear engaged and track staff selecting neutral when they´re ready to move it.

I'm maybe 75% confident they have to leave it in neutral, but if somebody wants to check I'll hold my hands up if I'm wrong. The trouble with leaving it in gear and relying on the neutral switch is it doesn't always work. I'm also pretty confident that as a general rule the team would prefer it if the driver would have the car in neutral before switching off the engine wherever possible, although in that particular case I suspect both the engine and the gearbox are now scrap in any case.

In any event I think in that scenario, once the driver was out and the marshalls were at the scene tackling the fire, the driver could reasonably assume the car was in the safe custody of the marshalls and his responsibility for the car more or less ended there. I don't want to appear to be hard on a group of unpaid volunteers, but if a car rolls across the circuit after the driver has got out and the marshalls have arrived at the scene and ushered the driver away, thereby taking responsibility for the car from him, that's a marshalling issue in my book.

[Clatter]

I have to say I find your post unnecessarily aggressive, rude and unpleasant.

Sorry about that but I think the question is that stupid.

[Skinnyguy]

I´m 100% confident they try to leave it on gear when the car fails. Why? Because otherwise they can´t even get out on this sort of situation, it´ll roll as soon as they release the brakes:



Also I know sometimes they don´t manage to do it, I remember ¿Webber? desperately trying to explain a marshall he needed him to place a extinghuished under a wheel in order to be able to get out of the car.

And then it comes the part where I doubt. Once they´re out, I don´t think they´re supposed to wait for track staff to select neutral. I think they´re free to leave as soon as steering wheel is on place, and it´s down to track staff to selects neutral themselves.

[baddog]

It was a no-brainer to bring out the safety car. Of course the rules once that happens may be stupid but thats a side-issue.