Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Reasons for parc fermé [merged]


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 alpinesmuggler

alpinesmuggler
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 25 September 2013 - 00:45

I've been looking for the reason the FIA introduced the parc fermé, and my admittedly limited research points in the "cost reduction" direction. If that was indeed the stated reason--and I really only have a few blog entries to go by--can any of you better-informed fans break down the intended financial benefits for teams?

 

Or are there other reasons why teams haven't been allowed to work on the cars between quali and the race for what, seven years now?

 

I'm also nonplussed by the race tire rules for Q3 participants. But that's for another thread.


Edited by Buttoneer, 25 September 2013 - 11:53.
updated title to reflect subject


Advertisement

#2 JSDSKI

JSDSKI
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 25 September 2013 - 01:02

Well funded teams used to make parts, engines, wings, etc - hell, they even made entire "qualy" cars!.   This was an enormous advantage to win grid position and points; ie, CASH to the teams.  The poorer teams said they'd disappear.  Mr. Ecclestone has an obligation to produce a certain number of cars at the race in order to collect fees from the local race promoters.  So he needed to keep the little teams in.  So rules and regulations were created (sound familiar?) to even out the qualifying between the teams. 

 

But teams being teams, and with designers and engineers being obsessive compulsive rules twisters, as the rules changed to reduce this essentially economic advantage, teams would simply swap the qualy parts for race parts overnight after qualifying.  So then parc ferme rules were imposed to keep teams from swapping out the parts and changing the cars from qualifying to race trim.  The sporting theory is that teams should race what they qualify. 

 

BMW used to make some hand grenade turbo engines for Brabham.  They were unbelievably quick.  Piquet used to complain that his eyeballs were squished by the acceleration.


Edited by JSDSKI, 25 September 2013 - 01:02.


#3 alpinesmuggler

alpinesmuggler
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:00

Thanks, JSDSKI, it's a thought-provoking perspective. That BT52 was a monster, 1000BHP or something like that? Gorgeous car as well.

 

I understand not having special qualifying cars, in the same vein as I understand not allowing more than two cars per race weekend. Manufacturing additional chassis would really be beyond the capabilities of most teams, especially with the processes and materials involved today.

 

Still, even with the "race what you qualify" rules--sensible as they are on paper and from a sporting point of view--we effectively have a multi-tiered formula with fairly static grid/finishing positions that are largely dependent on the amount of money a team can spend. Would it really hurt the show if teams were allowed to bring both qualifying and race spec aero parts? Make adjustments to ride-height, weight distribution, whatever else short of swapping out entire powerplants? The poor teams would stay poor, the rich ones would stay rich, but perhaps the qualifying and race battles could improve within the tiers.

 

Again, I understand the logic, I just don't see the results in terms of allowing a more equal playing field. When the top teams can afford to spend millions on an extra slot in the front wing, the parc fermé restrictions seem a bit misplaced.


Edited by alpinesmuggler, 25 September 2013 - 02:10.


#4 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 39,690 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:05

What's happened is the money has been spent elsewhere such as R+D, simulation and what not. In saying that I am sure the mechanics are seriously grateful for getting a breather. Also the third car really has not been missed so even from an environmental perspective i suppose it worked out OK. 



#5 alpinesmuggler

alpinesmuggler
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:27

What's happened is the money has been spent elsewhere such as R+D, simulation and what not.

That's what's been bothering me and why I wanted to broach this topic. What is the purpose of limiting one avenue of spending if we allow the budget to simply reflow into a different channel?

 

IMO, the looser the regulations, the more interesting the choices teams make with regard to fund allocations.



#6 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 25 September 2013 - 03:44

What used to be interesting on occasion was that someone would qualify poorly, but have a great race setup, and come through the field.

You could get an inkling of this happening by looking at the warm up times - set on full tanks.

 

I do miss the old ways, being able to set a qualifying time during Friday or Saturday.

This modern system is mostly done for the TV show, has little to do with motorsport.



#7 alpinesmuggler

alpinesmuggler
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 25 September 2013 - 06:31

I do miss the old ways, being able to set a qualifying time during Friday or Saturday.
This modern system is mostly done for the TV show, has little to do with motorsport.

This could be interesting. Let's say the team/driver nail a 1-3 lap setup on Friday or Saturday and get a monster time. Why not count it? This would give the opportunity for the team to focus on race setup in any remaining sessions. Admittedly, this would be a huge change to current regulations.

But say we stick with the current three-part elimination qualifying concept. Opening up the parc fermé would allow guys who barely missed out on Q2 or Q3 adjustments for a different race strategy beyond tires and minor front wing tweaks. Heck, it might even put some clever mid-fielders into Q3 with the resulting media exposure for sponsors and the surprise factor that we as fans like.

The problem nowadays is that I personally--and I don't presume to speak for anyone else--find the "TV-friendly" format horribly predictable and boring. The only surprises we get is when a top team/driver screws up in Q2 and then has to dick around the midfield for the entire race barring a magnificent start (hard to get from P12+) or the odd crash/safety car.

I don't know. It's not like I was going to races in the '80s, and my TV experience didn't seem particularly bad, even though my TV then was about the size of one of my monitors nowadays. :)

Edited by alpinesmuggler, 25 September 2013 - 07:00.


#8 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 25 September 2013 - 06:42

I remember it being to stop having the mechanics working on the car the entire night like they used to do.

SAfety reason mainly.

 

There is really no cost cutting in it.

 

I loved watching Warm up on sunday mornings.

These days there is not much left to love about F1.

 

fake racing (drs kers) is destroying it for me.

No innovations anymore.

 

F1 is going the wrong way when a Minardi from early  2000 would beat Vettel in his custom made Red Bull and probably lap it.

Only reason to keep watching F1 next year is to laugh at all thje Kimi fans when they come up with all kind of excuses to why he is being beaten by FA.



#9 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 25 September 2013 - 06:48

As far as I know, it's not to do with cost cutting, because there was already parc ferme in 2005.  Probably earlier (I can't remember).  To change quali engines to race engines yes, but changing the setup of the car.. the ride height and suspension doesn't cost much money.  They do the same thing on Friday nights, so why not be able to do the same thing on Saturday nights?  It seems more to do with spicing up the race, by having the quali become a comprimise in terms of fuel loads (when it was first brought in) or settings.  I'm not really sure what the justification for it was.  At one point there was even a Sunday warmup.. where they could further tweak setup.  When someone starts from the pitlane and has a full race setup, they benefit a lot.  But similar to the limited tyres in quali.. they seem to like bringing in these compromises that handicap one or the other.  I'm pretty sure most people are right in what they have said above, but it doesn't do the mechanics much effort or trouble.. or doesn't cost much.. to be able to change things on a Saturday night.  You don't need different engines, or Sunday warmups.

 

They can't even change the rear wing angle!  That'd take 2 mins to adjust.  It seems more about wanting to enforce a compromise.



#10 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 25 September 2013 - 07:53

It was done for cost cutting. It also made the T-car obsolete and in effect also the restart on the grid in a first corner incident or stalled car. It was brought together with the one-engine rule if I remember correctly. And it was needed to prevent engine swapping between Q and race. The mechanics still don't have a breather, they are with max 42 now and can't work on certain hours. Other effect is that the warm-up was binned.

 

I always hated the rule. More than once you could see a team struggle in the weekend to suddenly find a solution on Sunday morning and win the race. McLaren was quite handy in that way.

 

The fuelload Q was preceded by one-lap runs. They messed up a lot of good things due to Ferrari winning in the early '00. Most of the rules were and still are knee-jerk reactions.



#11 alpinesmuggler

alpinesmuggler
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 25 September 2013 - 07:58

When someone starts from the pitlane and has a full race setup, they benefit a lot. [...] It seems more about wanting to enforce a compromise.

Excellent point. I remember when Lewis got demoted to the back of the grid at the Spanish GP last year and McLaren elected not to start from the pitlane, while Seb suffered the same fate at Abu Dhabi and RBR made the opposite decision, resulting in respectively an 8th and 3rd place finish.

These two instances really baffled me at the time. What is the difference between taking a car out of parc fermé to change it into a full race trim and keeping the car on the grid and being disallowed to touch anything but the front wing and oil/tire pressure? If it's fine for pitlane-bound car engineers/mechanics to work through the night on race setup, why does it become a health & safety issue for engineers/mechanics on the grid?

It is simply a rule I don't understand. As the kind posters above have explained, there are no obvious financial benefits for smaller-budget teams, and now it seems that there are no H&S benefits for teams who elect to start from the pitlane. What gives? What is this elusive compromise we are talking about?

On a personal note, my job is not nearly as glamorous or rewarding as being part of a Formula 1 team, but I still take pride in what I do, and if it takes me a couple of sleepless days to put my team ahead of our competitors, I sure as heck take immense pride in it.

#12 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 39,690 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 25 September 2013 - 14:41

What used to be interesting on occasion was that someone would qualify poorly, but have a great race setup, and come through the field.

You could get an inkling of this happening by looking at the warm up times - set on full tanks.

 

 

When? Seriously, people have extremely short memories. The racing from the late 90's through to 2008 was absolute rubbish, they barely ever passed each other, the rules did not work at all. 



#13 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 31,245 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 25 September 2013 - 14:48

The FIA needs to find a way around parc fermé that allows the cars to actually race in wet conditions. The current situation is a joke.



#14 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 25 September 2013 - 14:56

Surely being able to change setting will lead to more processional races. At the moment they have to compromise between Qualifying and race pace, therefore you may get a car which does not qualify as well (Ferrari, Lotus) but will have better race pace and will be able to fight through the field, or good qualifying (Merc (start of season), Toro Rosso?) but will struggle to keep positions in the race, therefore giving some action and overtaking come race day. It also allows some teams to gamble on a possible wet/dry set up if they think the weather will change between qualifying and the race. If teams can change set up, the fastest car will qualify at the front then drive off into the distance and there will be no changes of position unless there is mechanical issues or a driver error. At least in the past refuelling allowed greater difference in stratagies but that is now gone. I think the current rules work quite well as we have had some great races in the past few years.

#15 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 4,819 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 September 2013 - 14:58

there is no wet setup. Nobody in 2013 will run the ground clearance necessary for a proper wet race, are you kidding me? The Lotus are bottoming out over half the straight, we 're not talking about a bounce here, constant bottoming.



#16 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 39,690 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 25 September 2013 - 15:01

That's what's been bothering me and why I wanted to broach this topic. What is the purpose of limiting one avenue of spending if we allow the budget to simply reflow into a different channel?

 

IMO, the looser the regulations, the more interesting the choices teams make with regard to fund allocations.

 

It's not that simple at all. Some aspects of development will lead to larger gaps between the cars than others, it appears RBR are again finding a way to use exhaust gasses and if it wasn't for that the field would be extremely close. 

 

Looser regulations are always requested by fans with no regard for the fiscal side of the sport, if you keep opening the regs it'll turn into an arms race of the highest order and every manufacturer will bail out as the costs are prohibitive. 



#17 JSDSKI

JSDSKI
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 25 September 2013 - 17:02

I'm looking from a much longer (older) perspective than most of you.  It wasn't just "changing setups".  It was entire powertrains, a arms, springs, wings, etc designed and made for

3 lap sprints and then being ready for the scrap heap one or two races on.  It was chassis that were built in a certain way (sometimes unsafely - much closer to structural limits) and fasteners that had been drilled through for weight savings and then thrown away after a race.  Not to mention (as some properly have) the affect on mechanics and engineers because of the lack of sleep.  Who knows how many accidents and racing incidents were caused by tired people?  Or by drivers desparate to get around a guy who qualified in the front and then spent 40 laps creating a procession of ten cars behind him because he was 2 seconds slower and just stroking for points.

 

From my view, we've had much closer racing (dicing and position changes) with the current regs than ever before.  As some have pointed out, most GPs in history have been one or two cars racing off into the distance and everyone else just trying to finish the damn thing.  It wasn't uncommon to have half or three quarters of a field drop out with failures.  You rarely had anything like what Kimi, Alonso, and Lewis seem to do regularly now - make up 3 to 7 spots on the grid through sheer pace, racecraft, and command over tire wear.  Prost really comes closest to what we see today.  Except he did it longer in the race rather than in the first few laps. But he was a master at race setup, directional car control, and pulling a race back to his pace. Simply top of the field for that.  Nowadays its the really really talented guys who can manage grip as tires are changing in the first few laps and maximize their charge. 

 

As for wet setups - it's just part of the strategic gamble.  Always has been.   


Edited by JSDSKI, 25 September 2013 - 17:06.


#18 Wiggy

Wiggy
  • Member

  • 450 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 25 September 2013 - 17:46

I like the idea that they scrap 'qualifying' as such, and replace it with another saturday practice session which would be shown live in place of quali.

 

Any time set in practice 1-4 counts toward your grid position... so you've got 4 sessions to set a fast lap.



#19 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,548 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 September 2013 - 18:18

I'm looking from a much longer (older) perspective than most of you.  It wasn't just "changing setups".  It was entire powertrains, a arms, springs, wings, etc designed and made for

3 lap sprints and then being ready for the scrap heap one or two races on.  It was chassis that were built in a certain way (sometimes unsafely - much closer to structural limits) and fasteners that had been drilled through for weight savings and then thrown away after a race.  Not to mention (as some properly have) the affect on mechanics and engineers because of the lack of sleep.  Who knows how many accidents and racing incidents were caused by tired people?  Or by drivers desparate to get around a guy who qualified in the front and then spent 40 laps creating a procession of ten cars behind him because he was 2 seconds slower and just stroking for points.

 

From my view, we've had much closer racing (dicing and position changes) with the current regs than ever before.  As some have pointed out, most GPs in history have been one or two cars racing off into the distance and everyone else just trying to finish the damn thing.  It wasn't uncommon to have half or three quarters of a field drop out with failures.  You rarely had anything like what Kimi, Alonso, and Lewis seem to do regularly now - make up 3 to 7 spots on the grid through sheer pace, racecraft, and command over tire wear.  Prost really comes closest to what we see today.  Except he did it longer in the race rather than in the first few laps. But he was a master at race setup, directional car control, and pulling a race back to his pace. Simply top of the field for that.  Nowadays its the really really talented guys who can manage grip as tires are changing in the first few laps and maximize their charge. 

 

As for wet setups - it's just part of the strategic gamble.  Always has been.   

 

The sheer waste of qualifying cars cannot be understated enough. You had teams bringing whole power trains each Saturday that had an intended life span of about 10 laps, with the massive cost that involved in an era of unlimited engine development, and the costs from all the parts you mentioned that accumulated to many millions over the course of a season. Even if much of the money was redirected to other areas immediately after parc ferme's introduction, it was still better for Formula One and its image to stop the practice of building whole cars and discarding them after a tiny amount of use.



Advertisement

#20 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 25 September 2013 - 21:14

Now they spent it on motorhomes and front wing development. Yay... F1 will never cut spending. They will use every dollar they can get.



#21 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 6,214 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 September 2013 - 13:25

The FIA needs to find a way around parc fermé that allows the cars to actually race in wet conditions. The current situation is a joke.

Something like allowing change of setup but not any parts. 



#22 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 26 September 2013 - 14:13

The Jordans used to qualify very well as they had more special qualifying components (e.g., bodywork, radiators etc) compared to other teams.

 

Of course they would they would then go backwards in the race....



#23 Costaz

Costaz
  • Member

  • 3,225 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 26 September 2013 - 15:22

I did some searching, and indeed the measure was taken to reduce costs. The FIA statement introducing this (and other measures) back in January 2003 makes for an interesting, and surprisingly relevant, reading.

 

The Full Statement by the FIA

By Atlas F1

 

Last October [2002] the teams currently competing in the FIA Formula One World Championship rejected all the FIA's suggestions to reduce costs. Subsequently, at their meeting on 4 December, they failed themselves to agree any significant cost-cutting proposals for 2003 or 2004. Urgent action is needed because costs continue to rise while income is falling.

...

WASTED MONEY

Much of the money spent in the FIA Formula One World Championship is wasted in the sense that it adds nothing to the enjoyment of the public. Yet it is the public who ultimately pay the bills. Without a world-wide television and media audience, neither team sponsors nor car manufacturers would contribute to the costs of the Championship. The interests of their shareholders require that they only invest in the hope of greater profits. These profits come from the public.

...

THE SOLUTION

By rigorously applying existing rules, the FIA intends to save the teams and manufacturers a great deal of money. A probable side effect will be to make the racing itself less predictable and thus more interesting. By applying the rules firmly but equitably, the FIA will ensure that no team suffers an unfair disadvantage. The best driver and the best car constructor will still win their respective championships. The rules in question and the effects of enforcing them are set out below. References are to the 2003 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations unless otherwise stated. For convenience, the relevant regulations are reproduced at the end of this note.

...

4. Under Article 71a), each car will be required to go into parc ferme immediately after making its second qualifying run. All cars will be released simultaneously from parc ferme shortly before the start of the race, when all checks on all cars will have been completed.

 

It hasn't worked too bad, I think, particularly for the mechanics, but I wouldn't mind a return of the Sunday warm up laps.



#24 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 October 2014 - 06:20

Today (Suzuka 2014), we had 2 SC laps and then back to the pitlane due to wet conditions. I had the same conditiions on the motorway (130 kph) last night, no SC in sight and I was going faster than Vettel (80kph) without aquaplaning.

 

Spain 1996, Spa 1998, many Silverstone races, Monaco 199?, Malaysia 2001 and many other GP's were memorable due to the rainmaster skills of a few drivers. It was the great equalizer and tons of fun to watch.

We had legendary rain races in the past, but I think they will never happen again. I used to look forward to rain races, but since Korea 2007 or 08(?) when they lapped half a race behind the SC, it has never happened again.

 

Ban parc fermé and introduce real rain tires. If you are the best of the world, you can drive a car when the conditions are worse than damp. With this neutering, a lot of tactical prowess is gone. It only gives teams more reason to not use rain setups and complain on the radio so they can stop the race.

 

EDIT:

This was the OP of a seperate topic, but it got merged.


Edited by SenorSjon, 06 October 2014 - 11:44.


#25 Kraken

Kraken
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 05 October 2014 - 06:30

I'm sorry but until you've driven a race car in those condidtions your opinion doesn't count.

 

Next time you're on a motorway with rivers of water running across get yourself in the spray of the biggest lorry you can find and switch off your windscreen wipers. Now imagine there are no brakes lights on any other car around you and there are lots of sharp corners. You'll then be about a third of the way to realising what it's like on a race track.

 

It's nothing to do with skill or salaries. If you can't see you can't see.



#26 tmekt

tmekt
  • Member

  • 1,254 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 05 October 2014 - 06:36

You know, the Parc Fermè rule has an exception for a "change in climatic conditions" so that's not the biggest problem. But even if it was banned, there's only so much they can do in terms of setup changes, they're running maximum downforce almost everywhere anyways so basically you could change the ride height and some other minor things but that's it.

Looking at the cars now, the ride heights seem to be quite high so I'm sure everybody opted for wet setups. It didn't really help for when it was pouring rain though, as you could see, aquaplaning at 80 kph.

Edited by tmekt, 05 October 2014 - 06:39.


#27 darkkis

darkkis
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 05 October 2014 - 06:41

Ban Charlie Whiting and we're all good.



#28 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 October 2014 - 06:44

As we are running now, the SC stays out untill it is ready to use intermediates (edit: and it is, people on inters within 2 laps after the SC leaves) If a team wants to run a low car and skids off, it is his own problem. The one guy running a higher car has no issue.

 

And to the motorway comparison, the helmet nearly has no water hitting it due to aerodynamics.


Edited by SenorSjon, 05 October 2014 - 06:51.


#29 Murl

Murl
  • Member

  • 743 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 05 October 2014 - 08:29

Today, we had 2 SC laps and then back to the pitlane due to wet conditions. I had the same conditiions on the motorway (130 kph) last night, no SC in sight and I was going faster than Vettel (80kph) without aquaplaning.

 

 

If you were driving @ 130kph then that wasn't very heavy rain.

 

Once you have done some serious aquaplaning you will know.



#30 DutchQuicksilver

DutchQuicksilver
  • Member

  • 6,314 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 05 October 2014 - 08:42

I'm sorry but until you've driven a race car in those condidtions your opinion doesn't count.

 

Next time you're on a motorway with rivers of water running across get yourself in the spray of the biggest lorry you can find and switch off your windscreen wipers. Now imagine there are no brakes lights on any other car around you and there are lots of sharp corners. You'll then be about a third of the way to realising what it's like on a race track.

 

It's nothing to do with skill or salaries. If you can't see you can't see.

But he's right though. Why do we even have full wets anyway? They are only there to use behind the SC.

 

Spray behind the cars has been there for decades, so that's no excuse. If quali is dry, and the race is wet, they should be allowed to raise the car so it won't aqua plan, yet parc fermé rules is preventing this.


Edited by DutchQuicksilver, 05 October 2014 - 08:50.


#31 Requiem84

Requiem84
  • Member

  • 15,798 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 05 October 2014 - 08:47

The wets are so good and dispense so much water, that visibility has become a much much bigger problem than aquaplanning.

#32 DS27

DS27
  • Member

  • 4,679 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 05 October 2014 - 10:24

As an 'out there' suggestion why not get them to run very narrow tyres when it's really wet. Yes, they will be slow but it will dramatically reduce the amount of aquaplaning and also the amount of spray thrown up, therefore visibility won't be such an issue.

 

At least we will get to watch some racing. As grip levels and speeds will  be significantly lower, you could also argue that any potential accident is likely to be at a much lower speed.



#33 Kobasmashi

Kobasmashi
  • Member

  • 734 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 05 October 2014 - 10:29

There just needs to be a change in race director, and one or two of the drivers (Massa and Vettel today) need to stop crying about the conditions, and Bob's your uncle, wet races. Hamilton, Button and Vergne (and Ricciardo I think)  all came on the radio like "Why the **** aren't we racing?".



#34 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,997 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2014 - 10:34

If anything, this race will "prove" to Charlie Whiting that racing in wet conditions is even more dangerous than he imagined.

 

Stand by for safety car if inters are needed.



#35 Kraken

Kraken
  • Member

  • 980 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 05 October 2014 - 10:37

There just needs to be a change in race director, and one or two of the drivers (Massa and Vettel today) need to stop crying about the conditions, and Bob's your uncle, wet races. Hamilton, Button and Vergne (and Ricciardo I think)  all came on the radio like "Why the **** aren't we racing?".

It was only two laps later that the race started so no big deal.



#36 Skizo

Skizo
  • Member

  • 589 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 05 October 2014 - 10:44

There just needs to be a change in race director, and one or two of the drivers (Massa and Vettel today) need to stop crying about the conditions, and Bob's your uncle, wet races. Hamilton, Button and Vergne (and Ricciardo I think)  all came on the radio like "Why the **** aren't we racing?".

Both Hamilton and Button was on radio,they can't see.They was on radio saying conditions are good for inter after restart,because they done what,6 lap instead of 1-2.Charlie doing it always,and sometimes sending SC on dry race for a small debris on side and safe part of the track,and keep it out for 5 laps,basically change the race becasue it was boring,or other reasons.Safety Car is half the time not on track for safety reasons,and sometimes it is not on track when we really need it :(



#37 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 05 October 2014 - 11:12

Today, we had 2 SC laps and then back to the pitlane due to wet conditions. I had the same conditiions on the motorway (130 kph) last night, no SC in sight and I was going faster than Vettel (80kph) without aquaplaning.

 

Spain 1996, Spa 1998, many Silverstone races, Monaco 199?, Malaysia 2001 and many other GP's were memorable due to the rainmaster skills of a few drivers. It was the great equalizer and tons of fun to watch.

We had legendary rain races in the past, but I think they will never happen again. I used to look forward to rain races, but since Korea 2007 or 08(?) when they lapped half a race behind the SC, it has never happened again.

 

Ban parc fermé and introduce real rain tires. If you are the best of the world, you can drive a car when the conditions are worse than damp. With this neutering, a lot of tactical prowess is gone. It only gives teams more reason to not use rain setups and complain on the radio so they can stop the race.

Wake up. Those cars are a canoe in very wet conditions. As for 130k on the motorway in those conditions you must be either silly or have a death wish. I have driven in those conditions, bloody scarey at 80-100k in an AWD Landcruiser with very deep tread tyres. I had cars go sideways in front of me, in fact I got quite sideways once. I have raced,, very carefully in similar conditions. But Philip Island then had very coarse grain bitumen and was a lot more driveable in that weather than virtually any other track.

Really it was a waste of time even trying to start the race today when they did, then they wasted about 4-5 laps the second time when they could have been racing behind the pacecar.



#38 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 October 2014 - 12:00

An awd landcruiser has very wide tires, not helping. ;)

 

The cars are canoes due to ride height. But raising the car to much and teams lose downforce they don't want to lose.



#39 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 October 2014 - 12:10

Minimum aquaplane speed can be calculated using the formula V=9 x √P

 

V=knots

9= 'constant', although this can vary according to tyre design.

P=psi

 

A F1 car has tyres inflated to ~18 psi, so in this case V= ~71 kmh

 

A road car has tyres inflated to ~30 psi, so V= ~91 kmh

 

However, generally aquplaning is initiated by water depth >3mm, and the shape of the contact patch will also affect. These are merely the lowest speeds at which aquaplaning can occur. A F1 tyre will present quite a broad aspect to a body of water, and may therefore tend to aquaplane a lot more easily than a road tyre. 

 

There's also tread pattern, contact% & tread depth will also factor. As will the type and shape of the road surface. Roads tend to be crowned - higher in the middle than the sides, race tracks tend just to have a camber from one side to the other which allows rivers to form which can easily exceed 3mm in depth.



Advertisement

#40 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 32,908 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 05 October 2014 - 12:12

As an 'out there' suggestion why not get them to run very narrow tyres when it's really wet. Yes, they will be slow but it will dramatically reduce the amount of aquaplaning and also the amount of spray thrown up, therefore visibility won't be such an issue.
 
At least we will get to watch some racing. As grip levels and speeds will  be significantly lower, you could also argue that any potential accident is likely to be at a much lower speed.


Narrower tyres would mean having to adjust various aspects of suspension setup and maybe even design. Not as simply as just bolting on narrower tyres and expecting the cars to handle the same.

Edited by Ali_G, 05 October 2014 - 12:12.


#41 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 32,908 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 05 October 2014 - 12:13

If anything, this race will "prove" to Charlie Whiting that racing in wet conditions is even more dangerous than he imagined.
 
Stand by for safety car if inters are needed.


This is my biggest fear.

#42 F1matt

F1matt
  • Member

  • 3,228 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 05 October 2014 - 16:05

It didn't seem that long ago when Bernie was thinking of introducing sprinklers on the track to liven up the show. If they turned them on now the safety car would be deployed and the commentators get excited to see if we get half points.......

Over zealous management from race control is another factor for killing the show, F1 drivers are (supposed) to be the best in the world yet they struggle to cope with problems the average clubman takes in his stride.

#43 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 7,073 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 05 October 2014 - 17:12

If quali is dry, and the race is wet, they should be allowed to raise the car so it won't aqua plan, yet parc fermé rules is preventing this.

 

Wet weather tyres have a wider diameter than dry slicks, therefore merely by putting them on the ride height of the car is raised.  No need to allow the teams to adjust the cars further given the spirit of the parc ferme rules.



#44 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 15,887 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 05 October 2014 - 17:47

They should be able to adjust the ride height when it is a wet race like this. That will help.



#45 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 05 October 2014 - 17:59

Both Hamilton and Button was on radio,they can't see.They was on radio saying conditions are good for inter after restart,because they done what,6 lap instead of 1-2.Charlie doing it always,and sometimes sending SC on dry race for a small debris on side and safe part of the track,and keep it out for 5 laps,basically change the race becasue it was boring,or other reasons.Safety Car is half the time not on track for safety reasons,and sometimes it is not on track when we really need it :(

 

Hamilton was raring to go when he was P2, but then when he was P1 it was suddenly very tricky and a bit dangerous. That's just part of the game, I suppose, but it does make it hard for Whiting to be guided by the drivers if they are so transparently self-regarding in their feedback. Not singling anyone out, of course. I remember Korea 2010 when Vettel was screaming about how bad the conditions were, and as it turned out it he was nursing a terminal engine problem, which might have had a lot to do with him wanting the race stopped.



#46 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 October 2014 - 19:53

They should watch the light conditions in Asian races as well. A race should always have enough daylight for the 4 hours an event can take. An hour after the finish today, it was completely dark. So there was no contingency. Sutil claimed he couldn't see the streams and puddles anymore, hence his crash. If they hadn't run with the SC at the start, the race would have been finished a lot earlier in better conditions and Bianchi would be signing autographs to fans.

 

 

Imo, Whiting has had a great run, but new blood is required. I saw the Superbikes and Supersports have wet races, they were tumbling, they ware falling, they barely saw a thing. To add insult to injury, they are on a balance vehicle on a slippery track. No whining drivers, just racing. Only one stupid red fleg when a French driver was leading the French grand prix... coincidence?



#47 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 October 2014 - 01:58

wonder if they could add mud flaps or a fabric skirt to "catch" some of the spray