110 replies to this topic

[redreni]

And what happens if during that 20min the rain stops and the track dries off? You've delayed the race for all the broadcasters and made the cars all unsafe so they'd have to waste even more time changing them back...
 
You can't just throw the parc ferme rules out of the window every time it rains anyway.

Why not? There are already loads of Parc Ferme exceptions in the regulations, this would be one more. Obviously the warm-up would only be needed and feasible if it was already wet say, an hour prior to the scheduled start, and if all previous sessions had been dry. It would occur just before the pitlane opens for the cars to come to the grid. If it rained just before the race, or in the early stages, you would need to start the race under the SC and then, if it was too wet to race without raising ride-heights, bring out the red flag so that the teams can work on the cars. It would then be up to them to raise the ride heights before the restart.

[SenorSjon]

Why so difficult? We used to race when the track was wet due to rain before the start of the race, even while the whole weekend was dry. Teams don't want to adjust their cars due to the diffusers and everything around it. The old wet tires used to be bigger so the ride height was adjusted by the tire size.

[redreni]

Why so difficult? We used to race when the track was wet due to rain before the start of the race, even while the whole weekend was dry. Teams don't want to adjust their cars due to the diffusers and everything around it. The old wet tires used to be bigger so the ride height was adjusted by the tire size.

 

Yep, you've hit the nail on the head.

 

The way it is now, there's no risk in running too low because the race isn't ever going to go green if there's any standing water. But there is a risk to running too high, namely that it will dry out and any car running a higher than optimum ride height will be dog slow compared to the others, because extra ride height means throwing away downforce. So it's no surprise that the cars are all running too low to the ground, is it? There has to be a case for saying that, at some point, once everybody has had a chance to raise their ride height knowing what the conditions are, the race is just going to go green whether the teams have actually chosen to raise their ride heights or not. Then the penalty for running too low is that you'll crash.

 

This is very much analagous to what Davidson was saying about safer conditions leading to riskier driver behaviour. In the past, when the races used to go ahead almost regardless of the conditions, teams knew that if it was very wet they had no option but to run with enough ground clearance to avoid aquaplaning otherwise they would not finish the race. Now that the Race Director has decided he is not prepared to allow cars to crash even if it's their own fault for running too low, this just encourages reckless setup decisions, which have become standard.

 

The teams have the excuse, to some extent, that they are forced by the regulations to decide their setup in advance, without knowing for sure what the weather conditions will be, which is why I'm saying that when the weather changes for the worse, suspension adjustments should be permitted, or at least that the Race Director should have the option of allowing setup changes if he thinks that will help him safely to get the race underway in wet conditions. Some of the conditions F1 doesn't race in these days really ought to be fine.

[SenorSjon]

The freaky Canada GP was just a normal GP a decade before that. We had soaked races before in Silverstone, Spa and Nurburgring, those races would be cancelled now. I can't tell who is a rainmaster nowadays, while it used to be quite clear who severely disliked the wet..

[X61]

I agree with him in the sense that more safety makes drivers complacent.  I don't wear a seat belt because I find them uncomfortable, and I have a secondary line of defense.  My car has front, side, knee, and head curtain airbags.  If I didn't have that, I would be more inclined to wear a belt.  I imagine some drivers feel the same way--they know that if they do something that is admittedly unsafe, there is enough protection to prevent them from serious injury.  I don't wish harm on any driver, but there has to be a way of showing that mistakes will end their race.

[Fastcake]

The freaky Canada GP was just a normal GP a decade before that. We had soaked races before in Silverstone, Spa and Nurburgring, those races would be cancelled now. I can't tell who is a rainmaster nowadays, while it used to be quite clear who severely disliked the wet..

No it wasn't. That race had a complete torrential downpour, far in excess of some of the wet races we have seen before. Keep the cars out in those conditions, and even with high enough ride heights we'll be watching 20 cars tip toeing around a circuit comptelely blind.

Edited by Fastcake, 22 October 2013 - 14:05.

[SenorSjon]

Malaysia 2001... Spa 1998... Nurburgring 1999, Silverstone 1998(?), Spain 1996. We had our fair share of downpours, but none were stopped. Only Spa was halted to clear the track from a million dollar demo yard.

[redreni]

Why so difficult? We used to race when the track was wet due to rain before the start of the race, even while the whole weekend was dry. Teams don't want to adjust their cars due to the diffusers and everything around it. The old wet tires used to be bigger so the ride height was adjusted by the tire size.

 

Oh, and I believe the Pirelli wet does have a significantly larger diameter than the inters or slicks. I seem to remember reading something about somebody getting done for pitlane speeding having failed to adjust his rev limiter from dry to wet mode - the smaller tyres have to rotate faster to acheive the required speed, and if you don't switch modes when you put the bigger tyres on you can end up going too fast. It's clear, though, that the extra ride height provided by the wet tyre is insufficient to allow some cars to avoid aquaplaning even on relatively shallow puddles.

[Fastcake]

Malaysia 2001... Spa 1998... Nurburgring 1999, Silverstone 1998(?), Spain 1996. We had our fair share of downpours, but none were stopped. Only Spa was halted to clear the track from a million dollar demo yard.

 

It's hard to remember precisely, but I don't recall those races being as bad as Canada. Besides, just because some races went ahead in the past doesn't mean they should still now.

 

Oh, and I believe the Pirelli wet does have a significantly larger diameter than the inters or slicks. I seem to remember reading something about somebody getting done for pitlane speeding having failed to adjust his rev limiter from dry to wet mode - the smaller tyres have to rotate faster to acheive the required speed, and if you don't switch modes when you put the bigger tyres on you can end up going too fast. It's clear, though, that the extra ride height provided by the wet tyre is insufficient to allow some cars to avoid aquaplaning even on relatively shallow puddles.

 

Tyres may be one problem, but the key issue is the cars ride height. The parc ferme rules preventing the cars being raised for poor weather needs to be looked at, as well looking at making the ride height adjustable in a pit stop.

[AlexS]

He is right. Today drivers have a weapon in their hands and don't recognize it.

 

 

And like he says modern circuits should punish going off track much more.

 

 

Racing can not ever be "too safe", unless you see some benefit to drivers being injured or killed.

 

 

There are many benefits to drivers being injured when reckless behavior makes increasing odds that many more will get it or will get killed.

There are a lot of benefits that we know that people can get killed driving and that only happens with people getting killed. Millions are careful because of that.

 

There are a lot of benefits that a children is hurt when falls on the floor, not when as adult he has the first fall. We are humans that live in planet earth with gravity. Not in some Shangri-la incubator.

[andyF1]

I understand the argument that there should be asphalt on the outside of high speed corners, even though I personally believe there should be grass there.

But why do we see massive areas of asphalt run off on the outside of low speed corners? Surely we could have a wall (protected by tec-pro or conveyor belt in front of tyres) on the outside of low speed corners a-la Montreal Wall of Champions. Drivers are tested more and punished for mistakes without a significant increase in danger