54 replies to this topic

[redreni]

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.

 

Well, if they plod along their temps go down, which is why they drive so erratically under SC and VSC conditions in the first place. So it's not correct to say they gain nothing - if they're desperately trying to work heat into their tyres, they will not wish to make the delta by maintaining a steady speed. But they will wish to make the delta. That will mean going fast at some point while in the vicinity of the incident. And from what we've seen so far, there doesn't seem to be any risk of anyone being penalised as long as nothing goes wrong.

 

So yeah, I think it is not as good as slow zones. But I do support the concept of cutting out the long SC procedure, cutting out a lot of the unfairness that comes from removing earned gaps, and just slowing the cars down until the incident has been dealt with, then restarting the race straight away without pratting about.

[redreni]

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.

 

I don't know this for sure, but it certainly used to be in the annexes to the sporting regulations that the medical car could only enter the track under red flag or safety car conditions. I have yet to see the medical car being allowed onto the track under a VSC, and I assume the reason the decision to call the VSC in Monaco was changed to a full SC was because the decision to scramble the medical car had been taken. Whiting always likes the medical car to be escorted onto the circuit by the SC, and for the SC to hold cars back and prevent them from passing the medical car. I don't know what he thinks is going to happen if competitors were to be allowed to pass the medical car. Who knows what he is thinking? Perhaps he's worried that Massa would be disadvantaged because he wouldn't be able to find a way past?

[sabjit]

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.

 

So you want to see artificial racing? Isn't that exactly what is killing F1? Too many gimmicks. Also, as pointed out, the Safety Car was not intended to artificially close up the field. It was meant to provide a safe environment to clear up debris. In fact, the impact that a Safety Car has on a race is exactly what led to the Bianchi incident. The Race Director will always be hesitant to deploy an SC late in the race because it completely screws it up and can penalize drivers through no fault of their own and reward drivers without merit. Hence, the Bianchi incident sadly happened. The VSC allows for incidents which can be quickly recovered (like Sainz's breakdown) to be cleaned up safely in circumstances where without the VSC there would only be double yellows which would be incredibly dangerous.

 

 

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.

 

Whats the point in throwing a VSC on lap 1? There are no gaps in the field and a real SC can control the speed to the needs of the marshalls recovering cars and debris. A VSC in the first 5 laps is totally pointless.

 

----

 

Overall, I think we will see a pattern over when an SC and a VSC are used. An SC will be used for when there has been a crash of sorts and therefore a lot of debris and a VSC will be used to recover cars which have simply broken down and stopped in a dangerous position. I think that is their most appropriate use.

 

I would also further like to add my disgust to those who think that Safety Cars should be used as tools to make races more exciting.

Edited by sabjit, 06 July 2015 - 19:02.

[FerrariV12]

So you want to see artificial racing? Isn't that exactly what is killing F1? Too many gimmicks. Also, as pointed out, the Safety Car was not intended to artificially close up the field. It was meant to provide a safe environment to clear up debris. In fact, the impact that a Safety Car has on a race is exactly what led to the Bianchi incident. The Race Director will always be hesitant to deploy an SC late in the race because it completely screws it up and can penalize drivers through no fault of their own and reward drivers without merit. Hence, the Bianchi incident sadly happened. The VSC allows for incidents which can be quickly recovered (like Sainz's breakdown) to be cleaned up safely in circumstances where without the VSC there would only be double yellows which would be incredibly dangerous.

 

...

 

I would also further like to add my disgust to those who think that Safety Cars should be used as tools to make races more exciting.

 

Since it's impossible to "like" the same post twice, just want to say I agree with every word of this.

 

Fairer racing

More racing (less time dicking about after incident has been dealt with)

Safer racing (as you say, completely removes even a 1% subconscious hesitation about deploying the SC)

 

So win-win-win in my mind.

 

The SC absolutely still has its place, such as in the case of a track blockage or major incident where it'd be good to have the cars bunched up to give the track workers minutes of clear track per lap to work, but anything that can keep the field being bunched up to a minimum while keeping things safe will always get my vote. The only thing missing for me now is the reintroduction of aggregate timing whenever races are red flagged and restarted.

 

I've generally been against roughly 90% of sporting rule changes made since 2003, and frequently slag them off when they come up, so credit where it's due for once.

[Tomecek]

As usual, there are two ways how to look at it: for those, who don't see the picture of strategic stories during Grand Prix's, VSC looks like preventing random factors (such as accident and subsequent SC) to play a part. I am member of second group: I feel Grand Prix value to be destroyed by having a pure luck, similar to Nelson Piquet's Hockenheim 2008 podium. So VSC keeps the Grand Prix stories alive, and that's not a bad thing. But more importantly, VSC was brought into life, obviously, as result of Suzuka 2014 events.

 

I don't want to see full course yellow for each spin like Indy Car, nor do I want to see drivers ignoring local yellows. 

Edited by Tomecek, 08 July 2015 - 13:36.