54 replies to this topic

[Razoola]

Has anyone else looked at the new Virtual Safty Cars Rules? Its a totally joke in my view, what on earth are the FIA thinking!

 

The problems is It will not slow cars any more than the current safety car system. In fact it will do the entire opposite and allow more cars to run faster (while still slower then their top speed). Because the leader no longer has to slow more than everyone else once they are on the tail of the safty car.

 

There is no mention of a top speed limit, only a mention of staying above a minimum speed?????

 

What is the point of closing the pits for everything apart from a tyre change? Ok serving penalties... But what about situation of damaged front nose for example? I see the VSC being used at times where the chance of a damaged car racing as quite high. Under the VSC rules any damaged car cannot pit for repair (nose replacement). clearly instead of closing the pits the rule should be no Driver/Team penalties can be served while the VSC is active..

 

I'm really disappointed with the FIA. More so than I already was.

[Razoola]

Ok I misread part of the rules and see it does force the cars to slow (I read it as minimum speed and not minimum time, dam dyslexia) but I'm still at a loss relating the the pitlane situation.

[fridge46]

Using the pit lane, except to change tyres, is also prohibited under Safety Car conditions.

 

Article 40.11, paragraph 2:

 

"Other than when the safety car has been asked to use the pit lane, no car may enter the pits whilst the safety car is deployed unless it is for the purpose of changing tyres"

 

I personally think that there should be zero pit lane access under Safety Car conditions, not even to change tyres. Mainly to eliminate situations we saw in Hungary 2014, and Valencia 2010.

 

But also, the pit lane seems very dangerous when cars from all teams access it, more if teams are double stacking. There have seen quite a few unsafe release penalties handout in 2014, more so than usual, and I am really surprised we haven't seen a pit lane crash.

[Victor_RO]

Apart from the pitlane rules, the VSC procedure has been in use in various aeries and under various names for a few years now. Started out as Code 60 at the Dubai 24h, was adopted with some modifications first by ADAC for the Nurburgring 24h, then by the FIA/ACO for the WEC and Le Mans. Once they saw that it worked there, they adapted it for F1.

[Kalmake]

You can do repairs as long as you change tires as well. That rule hasn't changed for several years at least.

 

edit: It would seem that stop and go penalties can be served during VSC. 16.4b that forbids it during SC says nothing about VSC.

Edited by Kalmake, 09 January 2015 - 13:42.

[ANF]

The problems is It will not slow cars any more than the current safety car system. In fact it will do the entire opposite and allow more cars to run faster (while still slower then their top speed). Because the leader no longer has to slow more than everyone else once they are on the tail of the safty car.

They will never be on the tail of the safety car as there won't be a safety car on the circuit. And they will all be running at the same speed given that the minimum time will be the same for everyone (unlike last year's yellow flag rules which had individual delta times that were based on the driver's PB times).

You're probably right about one thing though: They will be running faster under the VSC than in the queue behind the safety car. I do hope that the FIA will set minimum times that slow the cars down a lot and that they will adjust the minimum times to changing track conditions.

And I still think they should have combined the suggested VSC rules with a low speed limit past the site of an accident or recovery work.

[Maustinsj]

*safety

[Tapz63]

*virtual

[charly0418]

after watching the 24 hrs of Dubai I gotta say I love the idea, gives you an option for those unconfortable moments where you can argue if a SC is needed or not

[rammsteinfan]

Has anyone else looked at the new Virtual Safty Cars Rules? Its a totally joke in my view, what on earth are the FIA thinking!

 

The problems is It will not slow cars any more than the current safety car system. In fact it will do the entire opposite and allow more cars to run faster (while still slower then their top speed). Because the leader no longer has to slow more than everyone else once they are on the tail of the safty car.

 

There is no mention of a top speed limit, only a mention of staying above a minimum speed?????

 

What is the point of closing the pits for everything apart from a tyre change? Ok serving penalties... But what about situation of damaged front nose for example? I see the VSC being used at times where the chance of a damaged car racing as quite high. Under the VSC rules any damaged car cannot pit for repair (nose replacement). clearly instead of closing the pits the rule should be no Driver/Team penalties can be served while the VSC is active..

 

I'm really disappointed with the FIA. More so than I already was.

 

 

.

Off course you are allowed to change the front wing. Esp if it is a safety issue. If you read the full rules I am sure there will be stated that if there are safety concerns or repairs needed you have to come in as soon as possible.

Edited by rammsteinfan, 11 January 2015 - 00:05.

[Lee Nicolle]

.

Off course you are allowed to change the front wing. Esp if it is a safety issue. If you read the full rules I am sure there will be stated that if there are safety concerns or repairs needed you have to come in as soon as possible.

The bit I read in the media has no provisions for commonsense repairs. So yet another source of an incident with a car trundling around with bits hanging off and carbon fibre shards being left everywhere.

It seems this has not adressed to problems. Yellow means hurry up and catch up!

ENFORCE the standard racing rules. Single yellow means caution, conditions are changed [eg usually some one off] Double yellows mean extreme caution, prepare to stop. eg marshalls on the track sorting out someones mess. And usually a double yellow is preceded by a single yellow at the flag point before.

Enforce those simple rules, problem solved.The so called 'Safety' car half the time is not needed on the track, nor are the American inspired full course yellows. Great on an oval, a waste of time on a road course. For the most part just a way to bunch up the field, that alone causes more safety cars!

'Big Time' racers it appears cannot adhere to the same rules as a club meeting. A few suspensions of a month or two would probably give some inspiration of behaviour. This is F1, Sports Cars, V8 Supercars who are dreadfull at ignoring flags, really any  so called big time events.

Supercar commentator Neil Crompton calls the safety car boards the go faster signal!! And very correctly.

Some flaggies are pissed off too. Particularly when cars crash when they should be using caution,,, sometimes they are on the track!

The incident in Japan was caused through ignoring the flags, and not just the driver concerned but most of them!

[ExFlagMan]

I agree entirely with the comments in the previous post - one of the main reasons I became disillusioned with marshalling was the failure of drivers to adhere to the rules.

My take on the ban on using the pit lane was possibly to prevent drivers using the pit lane to gain an advantage by driving straight through, as Senna did at Donington in 1993, as I assume there would be no minimum sector times for the pit lane as there are no timing loops.

The point I do not understand in the new rules is the bolded bit in this statement 'Drivers will not be allowed to enter the pits, unless it is for the purpose of changing tyres, [/b]and they will have to stay above a minimum time set by the FIA at least once in each marshalling sector[/b]'. Is this still referring to the pit lane?. With a minimum sector time how can you stay above it at least once in each sector - you either go above it or below it as it is a time for the sector - you cannot do both at the same time. I guess the FIA know what they mean, I wonder if anyone else does.

[Kalmake]

All competing cars must reduce speed and stay above the minimum time set by the FIA ECU at least once in each marshalling sector (a marshalling sector is defined as the section of track between each of the FIA light panels).

 

 

In other words delta time display in the steering wheel has to show positive at least once on each sector.

[ExFlagMan]

So if you brake hard enough on entering a sector to give a positive delta, you can go as fast as you like in the rest of the sector. Seems to defeat the objective of slowing the cars down in danger zones.

[Kalmake]

On the other hand it allows for slowing below delta average speed near the accident without losing time overall.

[Lee Nicolle]

VSC will be just a pile of crap. Go back to basics as I have outlined above. Less Safety Cars and far more adherence to racing rules. On a say 4k circuit you can still race for 3km of it. And in the yellow areas you do not. 

I did 20 odd years of local and national racing like this and NOONE ever hit another car yet alone crashed into a crash. A few were taken before the stewards for going too fast or passing under a yellow. A few races were red flagged. A more logical solution too having cars trolling around behind a safety car anyway. Then restart the race when the track was properly clear and all the marshalls were back in their place.

These days even at a state level meeting we have this stupidity. 4 laps of pace car in a 6 lap race. DooooOOH

Though a suggestion would be for such restarts to be after a lap behind the pace car so the competitors can get heat back into tyres and brakes and the usual no passing until the start line

Safety car has its place, though that is VERY often in pit lane! 

[WOT]

 

ENFORCE the standard racing rules. Single yellow means caution, conditions are changed [eg usually some one off] Double yellows mean extreme caution, prepare to stop. eg marshalls on the track sorting out someones mess. And usually a double yellow is preceded by a single yellow at the flag point before.

 

I agree entirely with the comments in the previous post - one of the main reasons I became disillusioned with marshalling was the failure of drivers to adhere to the rules.

 

Couldn't agree more!! Why create new rules? - the VSC will be just as rubbish as the Safety Car.

 

There are already rules in place. Read them. "Yellow Flags". It's not rocket science.

 

They simply need to enforce the rules, and enforce a speed limit for yellow flags. There are already mechanisms in place to control the car's speed (eg. pit-lane speed limiter). Continue racing after the green flag.

 

Seems pretty simple to me. Tie this in with a scaled loss of points on your super-license for disobeying yellow flags and it's QED.

[fZero]

They simply need to enforce the rules, and enforce a speed limit for yellow flags. There are already mechanisms in place to control the car's speed (eg. pit-lane speed limiter). Continue racing after the green flag.

 

This is really all they have to do. Go Slow zone just like WEC, problem solved in 5 min. The safety car has served no real purpose for years.

 

Seems pretty simple to me. Tie this in with a scaled loss of points on your super-license for disobeying yellow flags and it's QED.

 

I don't know that Quantum Electrodynamics is simple though.

Edited by fZero, 12 January 2015 - 05:33.

[ANF]

The VSC was used for the first time in the GP2 sprint race – and it seemed to work very well!

[Buttoneer]

Just a quick bump to say that I thought it worked very well at the weekend in F1. It was good to see that the advantages gained by each driver were not immediately wiped out and we didn't end up with the sort of shenanigans we often get at the end of a normal safety car period which can easily precipitate a further period. I would like to see more of this instead of the real safety car.

[AlexanderF1]

I though the drivers had to drive to a very slow delta(80kph) like in wec.

But hamilton for example looked like he was driving nearly flat out at somepoints. They should have to press the pit limiter to ensure max safety . and also why was vsc not used on lap 1. It was no different to the later race incident.

[realracer200]

Just a quick bump to say that I thought it worked very well at the weekend in F1. It was good to see that the advantages gained by each driver were not immediately wiped out and we didn't end up with the sort of shenanigans we often get at the end of a normal safety car period which can easily precipitate a further period. I would like to see more of this instead of the real safety car.

 

It was good to see that the advantages gained by each driver were not immediately wiped out? And why is that a good thing!? The racing is closer and more exciting after a real safety car, yesterday for example maybe Vettel could have battled with Hamilton and Rosberg for the win.

[Gyno]

I have a weird feeling that the only reason for it was because LH was leading the race and had it been Nico they would have deployed the real SC.

 

I rather have yellow zone like in Le Mans for just 1 sector and let them race the rest of the track.

With a speed limit the same as in the pits.

 

Sector before the slow zone would be yellow flag so that they can slow down safely before the yellow zone starts.

[Gareth]

I though the drivers had to drive to a very slow delta(80kph) like in wec.

But hamilton for example looked like he was driving nearly flat out at somepoints. They should have to press the pit limiter to ensure max safety . and also why was vsc not used on lap 1. It was no different to the later race incident.

Full SC slowed the race enough to allow the debris to be cleared before they arrived at it.  Given there weren't really any gaps to lose, and given random punctures aren't fun, I thought it was a decent call.

[Prost1997T]

Pitting under green and then your rivals pitting under the VSC (GP2 Monaco, Blancpain Silverstone) will screw you over. There's no "fair" way of doing it.

[redreni]

It was good to see that the advantages gained by each driver were not immediately wiped out? And why is that a good thing!? The racing is closer and more exciting after a real safety car, yesterday for example maybe Vettel could have battled with Hamilton and Rosberg for the win.

 

Ben Edwards seemed to be thinking the same way in commentary yesterday.

 

Wiping out the gaps was not what the SC was intended for. When it was introduced, the ability to limit everybody's speed using timing deltas didn't exist, so allowing the pack to close up was a necessary evil. Yes, it has a spin-off in that it can make things closer and more exciting, but so would randomly selecting leading cars to be given an arbitrary stop-go penalty, so that they have to work their way through the field. That's not what you do, because it isn't fair. Closing the pack up should only be done when it's necessary for safety, not when we feel like closing up the pack.

Edited by redreni, 06 July 2015 - 12:23.

[Graveltrappen]

Yeah, I thought the idea of this was to impose a speed limit.... But it's done through these 'delta' times and is a bit unclear.

I thought the best idea would be a similar system that most Go Karting venues have used for years... Where a simple top speed is instantly
Applied to all cars, and the gaps stay the same. Like engaging the pit limiter for the whole lap or whatever....

[MastaKink]

There seemed to be a fair difference in lap times between drivers i remember Brundle saying, 3 seconds between the Ferrari's and Mercs or something like that.  Was that a mistake by the Merc pair going slower than they needed to or did the Ferrari boys go quicker than they were supposed to?.  

 

It seems weird that both Ferraris did the same times and both Mercedes did the same times but one was 3 seconds quicker than the other. What am I missing here?

[oetzi]

Full SC slowed the race enough to allow the debris to be cleared before they arrived at it. Given there weren't really any gaps to lose, and given random punctures aren't fun, I thought it was a decent call.

Poor old Flippy lost 3 seconds to the SC. Could have made a difference.

[Gareth]

Poor old Flippy lost 3 seconds to the SC. Could have made a difference.

As could a puncture for being the first person through the debris.

[redreni]

I though the drivers had to drive to a very slow delta(80kph) like in wec.

But hamilton for example looked like he was driving nearly flat out at somepoints. They should have to press the pit limiter to ensure max safety . and also why was vsc not used on lap 1. It was no different to the later race incident.

 

This is because neither the cars nor the tyres are designed to slow to 80km/h, maintain that speed constantly to 5 or 10 minutes, then go again. That's why it's a relatively fast delta. It is also why the length of the timing loops was extended after this system was first tested in FP1 at the back end of last year. The drivers cannot keep the tyres and brakes in without being allowed to accelerate and brake violently, acheiving quite high speeds (and closing speeds) before braking before the end of the timing loop in order not to go under the delta. And they still seem to be allowed to do this even when passing the incident zone, which is worrying.

 

I agree it's not as safe as it would be if they had to maintain a slow, steady speed past the incident, but if the restriction is going to apply to the entire course, that's not an option. It would be an option if the speed restriction only applied to the sector(s) where the incident is.

 

In my view WEC and F1 should both adop each others' systems. WEC doesn't have the timing delta technology F1 has, and it has experienced some problems because drivers can't distinguish between the start of a slowing down zone and the start of the slow zone itself, or because gentleman GTE-Am drivers are so cautious on entry to a zone that the closing speed catches a prototype driver out. Until they get it sorted, they may be better off sticking to VSC, which has also been used successfully with those cars. They don't have tyre warmers there so it's not so critical to keep the tyres hot while driving around..

 

But in F1, they absolutely have the technology to enforce local slow zones. All the cars are in the same class and none of the drivers are 50-year-old CEOs, so there shouldn't be any problems in the "next slow" sectors, where overtaking is prohibited and everyone has to brake for the start of the slow zone. And it would allow for a much slower speed limit past the incident without any difficulty in terms of keeping the tyres and brakes in.

Edited by redreni, 06 July 2015 - 12:19.

[Buttoneer]

It was good to see that the advantages gained by each driver were not immediately wiped out? And why is that a good thing!? The racing is closer and more exciting after a real safety car, yesterday for example maybe Vettel could have battled with Hamilton and Rosberg for the win.

I don't agree that eliminating the gap is fair to the driver who deployed his available resources differently from the others. If I take a huge fuel penalty at the start in order to build a gap, which is then wiped out so that my fuel-saving phase then makes me uncompetitive to the cars behind, that's an artificial interference with the result. Same thing for the driver who uses fast tyres at the start and changes to slow, who is then vulnerable to the guy who ends on fast but only because the safety car brings them close together.

There's no question at all that the safety car restarts can be exciting moments, so I see why you think they should be preserved, but I don't agree that they are fair and now happily they are not always necessary.

[ANF]

I though the drivers had to drive to a very slow delta(80kph) like in wec.

But hamilton for example looked like he was driving nearly flat out at somepoints. They should have to press the pit limiter to ensure max safety . and also why was vsc not used on lap 1. It was no different to the later race incident.

Bolded part: Yes, it did look very fast at times. Very far from a speed at which he would be prepared to stop. And that was in dry conditions; on a wet track I guess the same speed would be close to the limit.

I actually don't know how the VSC delta speeds work. Perhaps the speeds are significantly lower in sectors close to the accident/incident scene?

Edited by ANF, 06 July 2015 - 12:40.

[anyeis]

There seemed to be a fair difference in lap times between drivers i remember Brundle saying, 3 seconds between the Ferrari's and Mercs or something like that.  Was that a mistake by the Merc pair going slower than they needed to or did the Ferrari boys go quicker than they were supposed to?.  

 

It seems weird that both Ferraris did the same times and both Mercedes did the same times but one was 3 seconds quicker than the other. What am I missing here?

 

You cant compare just one laptime for cars that a so far apart

 

http://www.fia.com/f...?token=lPsWuAU8

 

Vettel

33 1:47.338

34 2:08.003

35 1:53.127

Rosberg

33 1:40.063

34 2:11.650

35 1:56.994

[Kalmake]

Bolded part: Yes, it did look very fast at times. Very far from a speed at which he would be prepared to stop. And that was in dry conditions; on a wet track I guess the same speed would be close to the limit.

I actually don't know how the VSC delta speeds work. Perhaps the speeds are significantly lower in sectors close to the accident/incident scene?

VSC does not mean "be prepared to stop". VSC also does not remove flag rules, so they can still get a penalty if they blast past the accident scene.

 

The point of delta times is that they can slow down to a crawl at the scene and still not lose any time overall. Drivers are happy to obey flag rules when they lose nothing by doing so.

[realracer200]

I don't agree that eliminating the gap is fair to the driver who deployed his available resources differently from the others. If I take a huge fuel penalty at the start in order to build a gap, which is then wiped out so that my fuel-saving phase then makes me uncompetitive to the cars behind, that's an artificial interference with the result. Same thing for the driver who uses fast tyres at the start and changes to slow, who is then vulnerable to the guy who ends on fast but only because the safety car brings them close together.

There's no question at all that the safety car restarts can be exciting moments, so I see why you think they should be preserved, but I don't agree that they are fair and now happily they are not always necessary.

 

I don't think that it happens very often that somebody takes a huge fuel penalty at the start in order to build a gap, at least I don't remember anybody doing that lately (by lately I mean in the last couple of seasons). Of course in a way the Safety Car is unfair but on the other hand the guy who original had a large gap usually still has the fastest car so I wouldn't say it is hugely unfair. I see it more like giving other drivers in lesser car or with a worse setup on the day at least a fighting chance for an opportunistic win or podium.

[oetzi]

As could a puncture for being the first person through the debris.

I bet he'd have taken that chance.

[Retrofly]

VSC seemed to work well, remember all the garbage of:

 

• Deploy safety car
• Wait for leader to catch safety car
• Wait for the field to form up behind the SC
• Wait for the lapped cars to unlap themselves
• Wait for them to get back around

The whole thing can be a face for minor incidents where there is nothing on track. The SC still ha sits place but like yesterday its definitely better to use the VCS.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with me being a Hamilton fan.

 

Maybe.

[ANF]

VSC does not mean "be prepared to stop". VSC also does not remove flag rules, so they can still get a penalty if they blast past the accident scene.

 

The point of delta times is that they can slow down to a crawl at the scene and still not lose any time overall. Drivers are happy to obey flag rules when they lose nothing by doing so.

Let me rephrase it: Are the delta times slow enough to ensure that drivers crawl past the scene and be prepared to stop? If they're not, the FIA has some work to do, because that's the purpose of the VSC and why it was introduced after Suzuka last year.

[Kristian]

Most mid-race safety cars lead to exciting races. Imagine yesterday if the field had been bunched up and just released when the rain came - we could have had a seriously amazing end to that race with so many cars out of position. It could have been an Alonso-on-podium situation. 

 

So I prefer the old school SCs, personally. As long as they are used sparingly and not indy-style at the slightest piece of dust on the circuit. 

Edited by Kristian, 06 July 2015 - 13:28.

[fridge46]

You cant compare just one laptime for cars that a so far apart

 

http://www.fia.com/f...?token=lPsWuAU8

Exactly. Here are the laptimes for all those on the lead lap during the VSC period (shown in yellow; by the looks of it, HAM, MAS and BOT had already started lap 34):

 

 

The VSC row shows the total time taken for laps 33, 34 and 35. The delta shows time lost compared to the faster driver during these laps.

 

As you can see, for these 3 laps, the top 8 were within a second of each other (Kyvat fastest, Rosberg slowest, +0.871 behind). I dont know what happened to PER, ERI and ALO - they lost 5+ seconds somehow!!

[Kalmake]

Let me rephrase it: Are the delta times slow enough to ensure that drivers crawl past the scene and be prepared to stop? If they're not, the FIA has some work to do, because that's the purpose of the VSC and why it was introduced after Suzuka last year.

Double waved yellows at the scene mean they must do that. Delta times are slow enough to ensure they will not lose time doing so.

[chhatra]

Why can't they simply impose a maximum speed limit around the accident zone. They brought it out because sainz stopped at the last corner. OK so 30mph from entrance to Stowe up until t3 at village. They could have yellows everywhere else to discourage drivers from overtaking. Anyone exceeding the limit is DQ straightaway.

I've never understood the purpose of the SC. The accident is in one place why, bring the whole race to an effective close.

When the Manor spun at luffield, they stopped the session and even when the Manor restarted they waited until everyone pitted before restarting.

Edited by chhatra, 06 July 2015 - 13:37.

[MastaKink]

You cant compare just one laptime for cars that a so far apart

 

http://www.fia.com/f...?token=lPsWuAU8

 

Vettel

33 1:47.338

34 2:08.003

35 1:53.127

Rosberg

33 1:40.063

34 2:11.650

35 1:56.994

 

 

Exactly. Here are the laptimes for all those on the lead lap during the VSC period (shown in yellow; by the looks of it, HAM, MAS and BOT had already started lap 34):

 

 

The VSC row shows the total time taken for laps 33, 34 and 35. The delta shows time lost compared to the faster driver during these laps.

 

As you can see, for these 3 laps, the top 8 were within a second of each other (Kyvat fastest, Rosberg slowest, +0.871 behind). I dont know what happened to PER, ERI and ALO - they lost 5+ seconds somehow!!

 

That's why I asked and it makes a lot more sense, cheers.

[redreni]

I don't think that it happens very often that somebody takes a huge fuel penalty at the start in order to build a gap, at least I don't remember anybody doing that lately (by lately I mean in the last couple of seasons). Of course in a way the Safety Car is unfair but on the other hand the guy who original had a large gap usually still has the fastest car so I wouldn't say it is hugely unfair. I see it more like giving other drivers in lesser car or with a worse setup on the day at least a fighting chance for an opportunistic win or podium.

 

There aren't normally huge differences in fuel use, but this masks the fact that some people start the race lighter than others. Those who start light rely on building a gap early in the race, when their starting weight advantage is most pronounced. This can help them get track position and it can help them get a time cushion, but they do need to do more fuel saving throughout the race than people who start heavier. I think the strategies in this area are starting to converge more, though. The differences were more pronounced last season, when teams didn't have any relevant, circuit-specific fuel consumption or fuel effect data coming into the weekend, so optimum starting fuel loads were a bit more of a guessing game.

 

People do still make pitstops much earlier than the theoretical optimum lap, though, in a bid to gain track position. People trying to nurse tyres to the flag after an early stop are vulnerable to the SC.

 

Some people also just have stronger pace, relative to the opposition, at the start of a race than they do at the end. They could be stronger, relative to the field, when the cars are heavier, and they may have weaker relative pace on low fuel. Or they may get slower relative to the competition when the conditions change. If Williams had lost their gap to Red Bull under the SC, then there's every chance Kvyat would have passed Bottas before the end.

Edited by redreni, 06 July 2015 - 16:24.

[Baddoer]

That VSC was dumbest thing I have ever seen in F1.

[redreni]

Double waved yellows at the scene mean they must do that. Delta times are slow enough to ensure they will not lose time doing so.

 

But the main finding of the Bianchi accident report was that the judgement of what constitutes "slow enough" past an incident should be taken from the drivers. The VSC was brought in as a direct response to that. Double-waved yellows are no longer considered adequate when marshals and tractors are trackside.

[sportyskells]

I have no issue with the VSC. 

[PlatenGlass]

Most mid-race safety cars lead to exciting races. Imagine yesterday if the field had been bunched up and just released when the rain came - we could have had a seriously amazing end to that race with so many cars out of position. It could have been an Alonso-on-podium situation. 
 
So I prefer the old school SCs, personally. As long as they are used sparingly and not indy-style at the slightest piece of dust on the circuit.

Safety cars aren't supposed to be there to spice up the show. It's ridiculous to suggest that they should bunch up the field because it makes it more exciting for you. Things like this move F1 further and further away from a sport. You might as well be suggesting reverse grids. So I agree that the virtual safety car is a good thing, although I wonder why they've just carried on using the regular safety car until now. I think there might be something to be said for the suggestion that they used the virtual safety car because a British driver was leading the British GP, just like they didn't bother with the safety car last year in the German GP in a situation where they normally would when a German driver was leading. What a "sport" we have.

[Kalmake]

But the main finding of the Bianchi accident report was that the judgement of what constitutes "slow enough" past an incident should be taken from the drivers. The VSC was brought in as a direct response to that. Double-waved yellows are no longer considered adequate when marshals and tractors are trackside.

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. VSC takes away the incentive to be naughty. They could still blast past the scene and stay positive on delta, but they would gain nothing and risk a penalty.