47 replies to this topic

[Big Jim]

Something that has been bugging me for a long time is why so many F1 tracks have the finish line just a short distance from the last turn. Leaving little if no time for a driver to make a charge to the finish line to improve his finishing position. As it is now, the starting grid is way up here and the finish line is way back there. To me the Starting/Finish line should be just ahead of the pole position starting grid. Anyone else feel the same way.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I have wondered that too!

[Michael Ferner]

Like the 1913 French GP at Amiens... nothing's new!

[nmansellfan]

No idea here either, its the same at Monza - maybe it's to discourage overtaking at the end of the race, a tenuous link to safety of the chequered flag man or similar?  Sounds far fetched though!

[Allan Lupton]

Yes for most of Grid Start history the Start and Finish line has been at the front of the grid so that the race distance for the front row cars is an integral number of laps. How and when it changed is one of those strangenesses about the current modus operandi that baffle me.

Having the grid and therefore the finish close after the last corner might be so as to give a greater distance from the Start to the first corner were it not that the other "must have" of the Tilkedrome is a sharp corner quite soon after the Start. Think of Spa and the way the start was moved from after la Source to before it, so increasing the accident potential of the first quarter mile dramatically. Moreover they had to add a chicane to give the effect the OP writes about, as otherwise there'd be a good high speed long run to the finish which would never do, would it?

[Ray Bell]

Mt Panorama has always been like that...

I always though it was oddball.

[bill p]

Didn't Bjorn Wirdheim get mixed up at the 2007 Monaco F3000 race over where the finish line was and lost the race which he had in his pocket?

[GMACKIE]

Mt Panorama has always been like that...

I always though it was oddball.

I think it's about right. With a big field, cars are starting from before Murray's, so the start line wouldn't want to be any further back.

 

Immage the chaos at the end of a race, if they finished at the start line. Most cars would still be flat-out...when they should be  going for the brakes.

[Ray Bell]

Oh, sure, I can see the practical reasons for the start...

But the start line is still a long way from Hell Corner. I think it relates to where they had to have the timekeepers housed.

[Big Jim]

Immage the chaos at the end of a race, if they finished at the start line. Most cars would still be flat-out...when they should be  going for the brakes.

They wouldn't be going any faster than any other time during the race.

[2F-001]

Sometime in the early '70s, Autosport reported on a chaotic race on an airfield circuit (at Neubiberg, I think). This was a combined F2/F3 race (just to add to the confusion). The story was that the finish line was inside the braking zone for a straw-bale chicane, so that some closely-battling drivers would neglect to brake on the final lap and plough through the chicane after taking the flag. I assume this is the kind of situation that Greg was alluding to.
I guess that might have some implications for the times of practice (and fastest race) laps too; rather like missing out the Woodcote chicane at the beginning of a lap at Silverstone.


To be fair to Spa, I think the main reason for moving the start line to the run up to La Source was to have the grid (for standing start races at least) and the primary pit lane on less of a slope.
Are the start and finish lines placed differently in relation to the grid?

Edited by 2F-001, 05 November 2014 - 04:45.

[Wirra]

Might it be something to do with cars entering the pit lane being deemed to have completed a lap, rather than when they exit or pass the start line? 

[Ray Bell]

Good point, Peter...

Tony, if you go back into Stirling Moss' books you'll find that there was a circuit where he could get a faster lap if he cribbed on the pit lane, crossing the lane as if he was going to the pits and then getting a better entry to the succeeding corner.

Another trick I recall someone trying at Bathurst was going down the escape road at Murray's Corner then coming boiling out of there and getting a faster run onto the Pit Straight than they would have in the normal fashion to commence their qualifying lap.

[2F-001]

It certainly used to work like that at Silverstone where the start/finish line was at the entrance to the pit lane (or rather, at the beginning of the walled-off part of it).

This was highlighted on at least a couple of occasions (GPs) when either the winner entered the pits at the end of the last lap (Schumacher: to take - or not take - a stop-go or drive-through penalty) or was actually in the pits (Fittipaldi) at the time shortened race was deemed to have ended, due to counting back from the red-flagged lap…

But there seem to be some tracks where the pit lane straddles the start/finish line(s). This could have an impact in races where a competitor does not have to be running at the end in order to be classified as a finisher; if a car retired to its pit just before the end, but that pit was before the finish line it would actually complete a whole lap less than if it were after…

I can see that Monaco (and other places?) may have an issue with the grid extending right into the final corner, especially as grids are so spaced out these days; Current F1 grids must take up at least twice the length of road they did some years back. Similarly, some other circuits used to have the grid stretching out through a curve - e.g. Silverstone/Woodcote and previously Spa (the exit from the 'Bus Stop') where there must have been issue with drivers seeing the starting lights. Haven't quite understood why Monaco needs the finish line in a different place though. Presumably in these cases lap times are taken at the finish line since the first lap is unlikely to be a candidate for fastest lap.

Are there any current GP venues that have the finish line after the first pit box?

[Michael Ferner]

The finish line is generally defined by the timing beam, or whatever is used to time the cars. So, to place the starting line independently from that, with considerations such as safety or visibility of the starting signals is generally progressive thinking, I'd say. There is no logic that dictates that start and finish must be at the same spot.

Interesting thoughts about the placing of the finish line in relation to the pits. This can, indeed, become a problem. When Parnelli Jones retired from the lead in the 1967 Indy 500, he slowly rolled to his pit just before the finish line. At Indianapolis, roughly one third of the pits are positioned behind, and two thirds before the line - if Parnelli's pit had been placed behind the line, he'd have "finished" third instead of sixth!! A difference of a few yards, and $20,000...

[KWSN - DSM]

Is it not the front and rear of the grid, so start line nose of first car, finish line at tail of last car? With a hypothetical grid size of 'x cars'.

 

[dgs]

Nowadays the majority of circuits used in the Formula One World Championship have the finishing line behind the start line. This of course means that the first lap is shorter than all subsequent laps. This shortfall in distance is taken into account on official race distance and since the late 1990's a driver cannot record his fastest lap of race on the first lap.

 

Up to 1997 drivers could record fastest lap (such as in races where they only completed one lap). This was accepted as the drivers fastest lap of race.

 

1997:

 

Australian:  R.Schumacher, one lap only 1'48.323" (lap 1)  #

 

Monaco:  D.Coulthard, one lap only 2'11.201" (lap 1)  #

                M.Hakkinen, one lap only 2'15.786" (lap 1)  #

                D.Hill, one lap only 2'17.648" (lap 1)  #

 

Canadian:  J.Villeneuve, one lap only 1'28.356" (lap 1)  #

 

German:  D.Coulthard, one lap only 2'22.326" (lap 1)  #

                H.H.Frentzen, one lap only 3'13.699" (lap 1)  #

                E.Irvine, one lap only 3'16.256" (lap 1)  # 

 

Austrian:  M.Hakkinen, one lap only 1'31.574" (lap 1)  #

 

Luxembourg:  T.Marques, one lap only 1'36.826" (lap 1) #

                       U.Katayama, one lap only 3'00.630" (lap 1). Only recorded as total time recorded in 

                       race.

 

#  All these drivers times are shown in FIA results shets as both total time recorded in race and as the fastest lap they recorded in race. U.Kayayama is shown as recording a race time, no fastest lap recorded. I questioned this with Charlie Whiting (FIA Official Starter) who stated that Marques allowed to record a fastest lap as he crossed the timing line before retiring, whilst Katayama retired in pit-lane and did not cross the timing line.

 

1988:

 

Australian:  R.Schumacher, one lap only 1'50.966" (lap 1)  #

                   J.Magnussen, one lap only 1'52.353" (lap 1)  #

                   T.Takagi, one lap only 1'53.124" (lap 1)  # 

 

Austrian:  M.Salo, one lap only 1'57.392" (lap 1)

 

# These drivers shown in Autocourse Annual as recording a fastest lap. FIA sheets only record times as total race time, no fastest lap time recorded. By Austrian GP neither Autocourse Annual of FIA sheets show drivers recording a fastest lap on lap one. From then on drivers fastest laps are from lap 2 onwards.

 

Although it is unlikely that a driver would record his fastest lap on lap one if he completed more than one lap it is not impossible, take the 2007 European GP for instance.

 

J.Button, fastest lap 2'20.041" (lap 2) time recorded on lap 1, 2'06.366"

A.Sutil, fastest lap 2'25.798" (lap 2) time recorded on lap 1, 2'22.911"

N.Rosberg, fastest lap 2'50.950" (lap 2) time recorded on lap 1, 2'13.966"

S.Speed, fastest lap 3'01.900" (lap 2) time recorded on lap 1, 2'09.078"

V.Luizzi, fastest lap 3'22.300" (lap 2) time recorded on lap 1, 2'10.715"

 

 

 

[D-Type]

Does the fastest lap REALLY matter?  Other than to the collectors of statistics.  After all, it is 55 years since the fastest lap scored a point.  If it's a short lap (or a longer one for that matter) you simply programme your spreadsheet to ignore it.
Going back to the original question: I can see the logic of moving the finishing line back to keep it clear of any braking zone, but I don't think it should be done as a matter of course since, as was pointed out, it prevents any last charge to the line.

Edited by D-Type, 05 November 2014 - 14:06.

[D28]

To be fair to Spa, I think the main reason for moving the start line to the run up to La Source was to have the grid (for standing start races at least) and the primary pit lane on less of a slope.
Are the start and finish lines placed differently in relation to the grid?

I have often been baffled by the starting line at Spa being just before La Source, the slowest corner on this very long circuit. I realize it was moved and the pit location dictates where the cars start from, but so often the quick funnel into La Source causes contact.

It is just frustrating when this happens, are there any reasonable solutions?

[Tim Murray]

I've always assumed that one of the reasons for moving the start at Spa was that if there was going to be first-corner contact it was a better idea to have it at low speed going into La Source than at high speed going into the Eau Rouge complex.

[Spa65]

Good point, Peter...

Tony, if you go back into Stirling Moss' books you'll find that there was a circuit where he could get a faster lap if he cribbed on the pit lane, crossing the lane as if he was going to the pits and then getting a better entry to the succeeding corner.
. 

I remember in the early 80's at Spa (when the start/finish line was after La Source on the downhill swoop to Eau Rouge) Keke Rosberg lined up his Williams in practice off the track, up what might be called the escape road at La Source so that he could get a run past the hairpin in a straight line, thus arriving at the exit of the hairpin faster than someone who went around the corner.

 

I may have read about it in "Motor Sport". However the author (DSJ?) said that Moss had tried the same trick in the Vanwall in practice in the late 50's.

 

Both drivers came to the same negative conclusion about this artificial, though legitimate manouever. However 30 years of brain cell depreciation means I can't remember why it wasn't successful, though I do remember they both gave the same explanation. I guess someone out there knows, apart from Keke.

[ReWind]

I remember in the early 80's at Spa (when the start/finish line was after La Source on the downhill swoop to Eau Rouge) ...

AFAIR it was only the finish line which was after La Source. The start of the race was given before La Source but the lap counting started on the slope where the old pits were and where the race finished.

 

So the distance of the GP at Spa was not shortened by the divergence between start line and finish line (as is the norm today) but it was lengthened. The same happened at the Long Beach GP when the start was on Shoreline Drive but the finish on Ocean Boulevard.

[D28]

I've always assumed that one of the reasons for moving the start at Spa was that if there was going to be first-corner contact it was a better idea to have it at low speed going into La Source than at high speed going into the Eau Rouge complex.

I have also read that. Didn't Rodriguez and Siffert famously trade paint at Eau Rouge in their Porsche 917s following the start of the 1000 km Spa?

Still their is more distance for the field to  sort itself out before Eau Rouge; but the consequences of a pile up could be deadly.

[JacnGille]

Here in The Colonies, at my home track of Road Atlanta the S/F line is not far from the last corner but this is not the case at either Road America or Laguna Seca.

[Lee Nicolle]

This actually annoys me. IF the race is X no of laps they should be equal length laps, not either lap 1 is short or the last lap is short. 

When the start line is in front of the finish how does the timing, manual or electronic actually time the lap? 

It appears the majority of tracks do so.

[GMACKIE]

This actually annoys me. IF the race is X no of laps they should be equal length laps, not either lap 1 is short or the last lap is short. 

When the start line is in front of the finish how does the timing, manual or electronic actually time the lap? 

It appears the majority of tracks do so.

There would be a 'Timing strip' at the start line, and another at the finish line. The timekeepers would sort out who has passed which, and when.

 

Take Bathurst, as an example,  at the start, 'half the grid' could cross the finish line before they cross the start line. And they get a 'rolling start' too.

[2F-001]

Didn't Rodriguez and Siffert famously trade paint at Eau Rouge in their Porsche 917s following the start of the 1000 k Spa?

That would have been a rolling start though; I suppose the speed rolling start/after La Source or standing start/before La Source wouldn't be so different, but those races don't have the same issue with regard to starting on a slope. Although one might argue that (in those days at least) the practicality of the pit lane was of more importance to the endurance racers than to others.
I've been involved in several events at Spa using the 'old' (downhill pits) and it can be a bit of a nuisance, pushing cars about, leaving them in gear or chocking them in the rain gutter or whatever. I'd always assumed this was a consideration for the newer pits.

[Ray Bell]

Possibly the grandaddy of them all was Woodside...

A 3-mile circuit, or thereabouts, with the start almost half a lap from the finish line.

And didn't Hume Weir start their races a little before the finish line?

[2F-001]

AFAIR it was only the finish line which was after La Source. The start of the race was given before La Source but the lap counting started on the slope where the old pits were and where the race finished.

Just for that first year, 1983, I think. There is some uncertainty over the length of the race though: some sources have the race as 40 laps (the race was shortened from 42) while others say (specifically) 40 laps plus the distance from startline to finish line (just under half a mile).

The start was chaotic anyway. A false start was declared (a bit late?); I don't think anyone jumped, just a messy line up). The field completed the lap at varying speeds and as the first few arrived at the grid the teams poured onto the track again, all of which made an immediate restart impossible. There was then a controversy over whether or not a couple of teams (Renault and Ferrari) had refuelled on the grid. With another warm-up lap needed, the race was shortened by a couple of laps.

re the refuelling: Williams dropped their protest of Ferrari because Frank said Piccinini had 'given him his word' that he'd realised what his guys were going to do and stopped them. It was decided that it wasn't possible the determined whether or not Renault had actually put fuel more in (presumably nobody was interested in withdrawing a protest against them) so they were fine 5,000 dollars anyway…

An interesting aside also reported by Autosport that week: Renault were in the firing line again, being protested by Brabham, whose Gordon Murray claimed they were using the exhaust to 'blow along the line of the wing' and 're-energise the boundary layer' - the thrust of the argument being that they were using moveable parts (the innards of the engine and turbocharger) as an aerodynamic device. So maybe this sort of thing was illegal all along?! :-)

Edited by 2F-001, 06 November 2014 - 07:28.

[2F-001]

Ray - I have to confess my ignorance of Woodside is complete and total. I guess that's my homework for today set then…!

… having just looked up Woodside, I realise this also highlights my rather sketchy knowledge of Lobethal.
Always something new to learn though… which is a good thing.

Edited by 2F-001, 06 November 2014 - 07:27.

[Tim Murray]

There's some good stuff on Woodside (including its F1 race) in this earlier thread, but sadly of course the photos are no longer there:

http://forums.autosp...lesser-circuit/

[2F-001]

Thanks Tim.

[Roger Clark]

I remember in the early 80's at Spa (when the start/finish line was after La Source on the downhill swoop to Eau Rouge) Keke Rosberg lined up his Williams in practice off the track, up what might be called the escape road at La Source so that he could get a run past the hairpin in a straight line, thus arriving at the exit of the hairpin faster than someone who went around the corner.

 

I may have read about it in "Motor Sport". However the author (DSJ?) said that Moss had tried the same trick in the Vanwall in practice in the late 50's.

 

Both drivers came to the same negative conclusion about this artificial, though legitimate manouever. However 30 years of brain cell depreciation means I can't remember why it wasn't successful, though I do remember they both gave the same explanation. I guess someone out there knows, apart from Keke.

There's no mention this in DSJ's 1958 Belgian GP report (the only time Moss drove a Vanwall there), but he did he did try the trick at Rheims in 1959, a diversion at Thillois apparently giving him an extra 300rpm at the timing line.

[uechtel]

AFAIK at Spa the start finish line for Grand Prix races was moved around La Source in 1981. The reason (as I remember how it was reported by press or broadcast) was, that the old pit area had turned out too small and there was not enough space for enlargement, so they build the new pits on the other side of the hairpin. The shift of the start/finish line was only a consequence of that, so this would mean no relation to safety deliberations concerning the hairpin. The old pit complex and the old start/finish line still used to be in operation in F3000 races. I don´t know whether that is still the case.

 

Also AFAIK the only circuit where startline and pit area where not at the same spot was Anderstorp.

[2F-001]

re. Spa…

The first GP was in '83 though, wasn't it?

The 1,000kms resumed the year before and the 24-hrs used the new track from the beginning in '79. The new pits appeared in time for the '83 season, but I think the rolling-start races still used the downhill start until, when, '84?

(The map in the first edition of 'Higham' has the captions switched to the wrong sides of the track. The Higham/Jones 'World Motor Racing Circuits' coffee-table book seems to have this wrong too - along with several other things.)

Edited by 2F-001, 06 November 2014 - 08:50.

[D28]

2F-001:

Thanks for the information on rolling starts at Spa, I confess to being ignorant of their use in European long distance events.

Was the format used at other circuits at the time? I am thinking of the 1970 era.

[king_crud]

I'm not sure of it but my guess as to the modern trend of moving the finish line back might be to do with having everyone on the same level with regards to going into the pits to finish the race distance? It seems the finish line is pushed back before the last pit box. I'm probably completely wrong, which wouldn't be the first time.

 

Also the timing line for Magny Cours was very close to the final corner. I seem to recall Senna got pole (maybe 1992/93?) by essentially not slowing down enough for the corner and spinning his car across the line.

[RogerGraham]

I have also read that. Didn't Rodriguez and Siffert famously trade paint at Eau Rouge in their Porsche 917s following the start of the 1000 km Spa?

 

There's a famous/awesome photo of that encounter all over the web, including here.

[D28]

There's a famous/awesome photo of that encounter all over the web, including here.

Right, that's the shot I had in mind. An iconic photo of my favourite sports car duo of the era. Still wondering about rolling starts for endurance races at other tracks? 

[Spa65]

There's no mention this in DSJ's 1958 Belgian GP report (the only time Moss drove a Vanwall there), but he did he did try the trick at Rheims in 1959, a diversion at Thillois apparently giving him an extra 300rpm at the timing line.

Thanks Roger. I have no doubt that you are correct about the trick at Rheims. Thillois seems a prime candidate for such a ploy, though perhaps the cars were reaching their limiting speed by the start/finish line, so maybe that was why the net effect wouldn't be worth it.

 

However I am quite sure that I also read about this happening at Spa with Moss and Rosberg as detailed above. I guess it may not have been reported in 1958, being a one-off, but the repeat incidence by Rosberg around 1982 would have elevated the interest, making it worth reporting at that later date. Also I am not sure which magazine I read about it at the time - probably Motor Sport, though I did read others around that time so I can't be certain.

 

I am also quite certain that Keke Rosberg was the later driver, and he would have been way too late to drive a GP car in anger around Rheims. So I think that it did also happen as descrbed at La Source at Spa, as well as the Rheims case.

 

I guess Moss must have analysed every major track to see whether he could give it a try. Anyone out there know him?

[Roger Clark]

The Autocourse report (Maurice Hamilton) of the 1983 Belgian GP describes Rosberg doing this trick and says that he was emulating an old trick of Moss's at Reims.

 

On Spa '58, Moss sent a time in second last practice that everybody thought was good enough for pole and Vanwall didn't even bring his car for the circuit for the last session.  Sadly for him, the Ferraris of Hawthorn and Musso went much faster and left Moss on the outside of the front row.  It didn't matter much because he led away only to blow up the engine when he missed a gear on the first lap.  During that final practice, Moss apparently did a few laps in a new Maserati sportscar which I think is firmly in "couldn't happen today" category.

Edited by Roger Clark, 07 November 2014 - 19:26.

[Michael Ferner]

I recalled the Rosberg trick, too, and looked up his comment in his MSA column: he said that he was faster at the line, but lost it all again on the long uphill stretch after the "difficult" Eau Rouge section, and that he was surprised to learn that Moss had tried the trick 25 years earlier with the same result. I can only guess that this means that he had to lift through Eau Rouge and Raidillon, which would have brought the revs down on the uphill part.

[LittleChris]

From memory Keke was one of, if not the only driver, flat through Eau Rouge & Raidillon in 1983 but lost out to the turbos far superior power on the uphill run to Les Combes

[Glengavel]

There's a famous/awesome photo of that encounter all over the web, including here.

 

Obviously never heard the saying about winning the race on the first lap!

[2F-001]

Still wondering about rolling starts for endurance races at other tracks?

I was going to respond to this earlier, but I realised I'm not so certain of the facts/date and would need to look them up.
Sebring and the Nürburgring had 'Le Mans' style starts for a time, didn't they; Le Mans kept an 'echelon' start for 70, but I believe the drivers were already in the cars belted up (I recall a suggestion that co-drivers would run across the track instead with the ignition keys - notwithstanding some cars probably not having keys; did they actually do that?) then going to a rolling start. In my memory, Monza and Spa already had rolling starts, but I'm no longer sure…
By the time Silverstone had joined the regular roster of races in 78 I believe rolling starts had become the norm.

It was standard practice by then for the European Touring Car series, where races were typically 4 hours and up.
I have some more homework to do here!

Edited by 2F-001, 11 November 2014 - 05:48.

[Glengavel]

I was going to respond to this earlier, but I realised I'm not so certain of the facts/date and would need to look them up.
Sebring and the Nürburgring had 'Le Mans' style starts for a time, didn't they; Le Mans kept an 'echelon' start for 70, but I believe the drivers were already in the cars belted up (I recall a suggestion that co-drivers would run across the track instead with the ignition keys - notwithstanding some cars probably not having keys; did they actually do that?) then going to a rolling start. In my memory, Monza and Spa already had rolling starts, but I'm no longer sure…
By the time Silverstone had joined the regular roster of races in 78 I believe rolling starts had become the norm.

It was standard practice by then for the European Touring Car series, where races were typically 4 hours and up.
I have some more homework to do here!

 

I suspect, given that most cars probably had push-button start, the co-drivers might have vetoed THAT idea - running across a racetrack with several dozen hyped-up drivers just itching to take-off and thinking "he's near enough...I'll just go now".

[Michael Ferner]

There would be a 'Timing strip' at the start line, and another at the finish line. The timekeepers would sort out who has passed which, and when.
 
Take Bathurst, as an example,  at the start, 'half the grid' could cross the finish line before they cross the start line. And they get a 'rolling start' too.

I don't see why there would have to be a second timing strip at the start line, and I don't think that's the case. Its only relevance would be at the very start of the race, and that's already 'defined' by the starting of the clocks, so there really is no need for timing at the start line.

[Allan Lupton]

I don't see why there would have to be a second timing strip at the start line, and I don't think that's the case. Its only relevance would be at the very start of the race, and that's already 'defined' by the starting of the clocks, so there really is no need for timing at the start line.

Yes, when timing beams were introduced for races and the conventional Start/Finish line at the head of the Starting Grid was used, the beam was switched off until the starting cars had cleared it. In club racing that was also the case when transponders were introduced. As Michael implies, the clocks were started by the starting signal (flag or lights).

 

By citing Spa as a strange case of moved starting I seem to have provoked a digression which I didn't intend and at the risk of doing so again I'll say that at circuits where the pits are next to the Start/Finish line that line extended across the pit lanes. That was (and presumably is) because laps that finish or start in the pits must still count.