Delayed/cancelled sessions in the wet - enough is enough
#1
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:00
The commentators always tell us it's to do with the ride height of the cars and aquaplaning and acting like a "toboggan", and they always support each decision and act as if nothing can be done about it and that it's just one of those things. But surely this is complete nonsense.
If they said it was a visibility thing and following other cars would be too dangerous, then that's another argument. But that's never the reason given so I'm going to put that to one side.
If F1 cars can't race when there's standing water because they run too low, then raise the ride height of the cars. It's as simple as that. "Oh no, but then they'd be too uncompetitive in the dry". No. Change the rules so that they have to run higher, or to allow them to make changes in the wet, or make the wet tyres larger to automatically raise the ride height more when those tyres are fitted. Why is this such a problem?
Advertisement
#2
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:05
Light cars, wide tyres, they always going to float/aquaplane, downforce isn't consistently enough to push car/tyres down enough to move he water, it's not all about ride height.
#3
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:05
Could be Pirelli?
A China 2009 like race seems entirely impossible nowadays.
#4
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:05
Two Words:
Jules Bianchi.
That is all.
#5
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:06
I've lost count of the number of times in the last five years or so that a qualifying session or race has been delayed or even called off because it's been too wet, and we had it again at qualifying in Malaysia.
The commentators always tell us it's to do with the ride height of the cars and aquaplaning and acting like a "toboggan", and they always support each decision and act as if nothing can be done about it and that it's just one of those things. But surely this is complete nonsense.
If they said it was a visibility thing and following other cars would be too dangerous, then that's another argument. But that's never the reason given so I'm going to put that to one side.
If F1 cars can't race when there's standing water because they run too low, then raise the ride height of the cars. It's as simple as that. "Oh no, but then they'd be too uncompetitive in the dry". No. Change the rules so that they have to run higher, or to allow them to make changes in the wet, or make the wet tyres larger to automatically raise the ride height more when those tyres are fitted. Why is this such a problem?
Exactly the same point I wanted to make at a FOTA meeting nearly 4 years ago, alas I wasn't asked to put my question to the panel...
Its ridiculous, F1 the pinnacle of motorsport and all that.
#6
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:07
Light cars, wide tyres, they always going to float/aquaplane, downforce isn't consistently enough to push car/tyres down enough to move he water, it's not all about ride height.
Change of regs then - heavier cars please chaps...
#7
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:10
I think it's too late now, Jules bianchi accident was the final nail in the coffin of allowing drivers to race in the wet. I think the cuts in the wet tyres needs to be improved to clear more water than the 60ltr/sec we currently have. Perhaps increase the diameter like bridgestone did?
#8
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:11
Pirelli wet tyres are ****, simple as that.
#9
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:12
Sigh surely someone was to find something to complain about after today
#10
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:20
It also seems Q2 was not wet enough to red flag it, they waited until the time ran out...
#11
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:21
This is the consequence of an open cockpit and there are no easy fix to the situation. If you improve the tyres then we also need to worry about the visibilities which has always been my biggest worries in the past.
Edit: Fia can't win in this situation.
Edited by micktosin, 29 March 2015 - 20:23.
#12
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:22
#13
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:28
Two Words:
Jules Bianchi.
That is all.
This has been a significant problem for a few years, Bianchi's accident just gives a compounding effect to their unexplained apprehension.
#14
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:33
One thing they could do ... In the monsoon season, race at a time when it's not going to rain. Everyone knows in Malaysia, at this time of year, the rain starts early evening. So if they start an hour or two earlier there wouldn't be a problem there.
#15
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:40
The race being wet was NOT the problem at Suzuka last year. It was the race control who thought a tractor operating with 4-5 marshals outside a dangerous corner in a damp and dark circuit was not worth bringing in the saftey car.
I can't recall any serious incidents that had happened in wet races in the last decade or so. Hell, just in 2008 we had Monaco, Monza, Silverstone and Spa with varying degrees of rain. Sure, some spun off or collided, that's auto racing.
It's ironic that wet racing is now forbidden, yet in 2013 we had to wait till Silverstone for the powers that be to realize that regular tyre delaminations may be kinda dangerous.
#16
Posted 29 March 2015 - 20:41
They already put the Malaysian race an hour forward this year.
It also seems Q2 was not wet enough to red flag it, they waited until the time ran out...
I hope they do the same in future qualifying sessions as well. I hate it when the red flag renders the wet part of a session utterly pointless.
#17
Posted 29 March 2015 - 21:11
It also seems Q2 was not wet enough to red flag it, they waited until the time ran out...
They'd have been waiting ages for the track to be dry enough for slicks and therefore for cars to possibly try to beat the times set before the rain came down. It'd have been beyond stupid to throw the red flag.
As for not racing in the wet generally, to be honest at it's wettest/heaviest there's no way both in terms of standing water and visibility that they could've had Q3 starting on time. It was clearly far too wet. Ok, not as bad as Canada 2011, but still too wet to run I'd say. Said it all though that they more or less all went to inters at the start of Q3 rather than full wets.
#18
Posted 29 March 2015 - 21:34
Oh I'm sorry. F1 is perfect and we should never suggest that there might be any problems.Sigh surely someone was to find something to complain about after today
#19
Posted 29 March 2015 - 21:42
No whining about whining either then.
Edited by PlatenGlass, 29 March 2015 - 21:42.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 29 March 2015 - 21:46
Could be Pirelli?
There could be something to that. Pirelli has in the past asked teams to agree on a proper 'wet test', but not much has come of it for all the obvious reasons.
We don't necessarily need to have a situation where qualifying goes on regardless of the track conditions, even if it means only one person sets a time, but it seems clear that the tendency of the FIA (and, what a surprise, Charlie Whiting is involved again!) to wait until participants can start on Intermediates is something else entirely.
Two Words:
Jules Bianchi.
That is all.
Not really, this is a shift that has been taking place over the last few years.
#21
Posted 29 March 2015 - 21:50
With all the tech in F1 ,ICE,MGU-K/h etc,surely they can figure a way of making water run downhill
#22
Posted 29 March 2015 - 21:53
They'd have been waiting ages for the track to be dry enough for slicks and therefore for cars to possibly try to beat the times set before the rain came down. It'd have been beyond stupid to throw the red flag.
As for not racing in the wet generally, to be honest at it's wettest/heaviest there's no way both in terms of standing water and visibility that they could've had Q3 starting on time. It was clearly far too wet. Ok, not as bad as Canada 2011, but still too wet to run I'd say. Said it all though that they more or less all went to inters at the start of Q3 rather than full wets.
Funnily enough, when Red Bull stood to get beaten at Silverstone a couple of years ago, that's exactly what Whiting did. Rather than say "well, if you can't improve your time or you don't think it's safe, don't go out", he waited three quarters of an hour until the conditions were to Christian Horner's liking before restarting the session clock.
At the end of the day, it's a combination of greater risk aversion and changes to the cars that mean wet running seems to be getting rarer and rarer. It's a world championship. The whole point of it is to test the drivers and machinery in different conditions, on different types of track and in different weather conditions. If somebody designs a car that can't run in the wet and it then rains, the stewards should show the mechanical black flag to the car or cars concerned and let anyone who has prepared properly for the conditions take the points.
If we had that approach, we would not end up with cars evolving in a manner where they can't run in the wet. It's only when you reward the team that fails to raise its ride height or fails to fit the correct tyre by suspending competition, thereby saving them from being beaten by somebody who is better equipped, that you end up with this problem.
I hate to revisit this again, but as it's been brought up, when it rained at Suzuka last year, the reason some teams (including Marussia) pressed on with heavily worn inters, rather than pitting for fresh wets or inters which would have been both faster and less risky in terms of aquaplaning, was precisely because they were expecting Whiting to reward them for staying out on the wrong tyre by bringing out the SC, thereby preventing those on the correct tyre from passing them. Whiting may think, when he calls out the SC, that he is making everybody safer, but the unintended consequence is that people avoid pitting for a safer and quicker tyre if they think they won't be given an opportunity to make that decision pay, and then people end up falling off the road while they're waiting for the SC to come out.
Unless we realise, as F1 used to realise as recently as the 80s and 90s, that the conditions are what they are on the day, and that people who don't prepare for them cannot be protected from the consequences of that, this trend will continue. As long as Charlie continues to act as he does, no team will or should do any work on making their cars more suited to heavy wet running. They will not derive any competitive edge from their heavy wet performance if they are stuck behind the SC or sat under an umbrella during a red flag delay.
Edited by redreni, 30 March 2015 - 15:48.
#23
Posted 30 March 2015 - 01:24
It's been happening ever since the Pirelli era.
It's a bit ridiculous that they wait until it's safe to go out on intermediate tyres, what is the point in the wets?
Pirelli have been in the sport long enough to produce a tyre that is good enough in wet conditions just like Bridgestone did.
I'm all for safety, we never had any issues in 2008 or 2010 when we had several wet races which would now we would never get to see, even half of the Fuji 2007 conditions we are not able to witness in this day and age. This was back when ride height or car changes weren't allowed either.
#24
Posted 30 March 2015 - 01:54
One thing they could do ... In the monsoon season, race at a time when it's not going to rain. Everyone knows in Malaysia, at this time of year, the rain starts early evening. So if they start an hour or two earlier there wouldn't be a problem there.
Maybe they shouldn't race in Malaysia this time of year then either?
#25
Posted 30 March 2015 - 02:07
The added 15 minute delay was unneeded.
Paranoid decisions driven by sub par wet tyres
#26
Posted 30 March 2015 - 07:10
I think the last proper wet race we had was Fuji 2008..
After that, most races are always delayed or whatever.
#27
Posted 30 March 2015 - 07:20
Light cars, wide tyres, downforce isn't consistently enough to push car/tyres down enough to move he water,
Didn't seem to hurt in 1978:
#28
Posted 30 March 2015 - 07:33
If it continues as is, they might as well ditch the wet tyres altogether, and allocate the teams more dry ones.
#29
Posted 30 March 2015 - 07:45
It amazes me supposed fans of the sport fail to grasp basic physics .. flat bottom cars running millimeters off the ground will aquaplane with any amount of standing water in the track. Period. It's not the tyres, it's not the drivers being sissies, it how physics work.
#30
Posted 30 March 2015 - 07:56
The race being wet was NOT the problem at Suzuka last year. It was the race control who thought a tractor operating with 4-5 marshals outside a dangerous corner in a damp and dark circuit was not worth bringing in the saftey car.
Great point. All the wet did was contributed to Bianchi's car going off the circuit. There's tons more cars go off circuits in the dry, so maybe we should ban dry races.
#31
Posted 30 March 2015 - 08:06
In 2011 at Montreal Martin Brundle commented on how that there must be something wrong if immediately after the safety car came in all the drivers pitted for intermediate tyres - it's one of the few things he's said recently that I agree with.
There has to be a consideration of safety, but there also has to be a consideration of the sport. Jules' accident was tragic, but it was a highly unusual combination of circumstances.
One thing to think about though, I haven't heard the drivers complaining about the attitude to wet driving, and it's their necks on the line. I like to see debate on this issue, but I'd really like to hear what the drivers say on this subject.
#32
Posted 30 March 2015 - 08:11
If they're not going to race on the wet tyres then what's the point of them? Either use them or ditch them.
#33
Posted 30 March 2015 - 08:27
It amazes me supposed fans of the sport fail to grasp basic physics .. flat bottom cars running millimeters off the ground will aquaplane with any amount of standing water in the track. Period. It's not the tyres, it's not the drivers being sissies, it how physics work.
Then how come Silverstone and Fuji 2008 were possible?
Now we have ridiculous situation, when it's "too, wet; too wet", and when it finally is good then everyone switches to inters. Why bother with full wets?
Edited by thuGG, 30 March 2015 - 08:29.
#34
Posted 30 March 2015 - 08:56
It's a bit ridiculous that they wait until it's safe to go out on intermediate tyres, what is the point in the wets?
Agreed. We consistently see sessions delayed, or SC's out, and as soon as things start up again it's a dash for inters.
If they can't race on the full wets, they either need to get rid of them or improve them. Or, if they can race on full wets, the race director needs to be a little bit less conservative on when he says it's ok to race again.
Incidentally also on this topic - why not red flag Q2? If the conditions are too bad to start Q3, why does Q2 not get red flagged when they are just as bad?
#35
Posted 30 March 2015 - 08:58
Then how come Silverstone and Fuji 2008 were possible?
Now we have ridiculous situation, when it's "too, wet; too wet", and when it finally is good then everyone switches to inters. Why bother with full wets?
you realize 2008 cars were relatively miles off the ground when compared to post 2009 cars right? For the last 2-3 years everybody's tea tray literally scrapes the ground on straights, listen to any onboard, the sound is hard to miss
#36
Posted 30 March 2015 - 08:59
Light cars, wide tyres, they always going to float/aquaplane, downforce isn't consistently enough to push car/tyres down enough to move he water, it's not all about ride height.
Cars are far heavier than in the past and tires in the past were also wider.
It amazes me supposed fans of the sport fail to grasp basic physics .. flat bottom cars running millimeters off the ground will aquaplane with any amount of standing water in the track. Period. It's not the tyres, it's not the drivers being sissies, it how physics work.
Due to parc ferme rules, teams don't want to raise the car height. The past 10 years teams were rewarded for NOT running a wet setup. They got a free tire change (everyone on mandatory wets at the start) or a SC midway during the race. It also seems new intermediates are better than new wets in any condition.
Canada 2011 should have never gotten that rain delay of 2 hours. When they finally started, everyone immediatly went to inters. More races with rain had long SC periods so the teams could go on to inters right away. It really makes rain races a lost art these days.
In 2011 at Montreal Martin Brundle commented on how that there must be something wrong if immediately after the safety car came in all the drivers pitted for intermediate tyres - it's one of the few things he's said recently that I agree with.
There has to be a consideration of safety, but there also has to be a consideration of the sport. Jules' accident was tragic, but it was a highly unusual combination of circumstances.
One thing to think about though, I haven't heard the drivers complaining about the attitude to wet driving, and it's their necks on the line. I like to see debate on this issue, but I'd really like to hear what the drivers say on this subject.
Depending on track position the drivers will either tell you it is too wet or the weather is fine. Also dependant on where the closest championship rival is.
Edited by SenorSjon, 30 March 2015 - 09:01.
#37
Posted 30 March 2015 - 09:04
Cars are far heavier than in the past and tires in the past were also wider.
Due to parc ferme rules, teams don't want to raise the car height. The past 10 years teams were rewarded for NOT running a wet setup. They got a free tire change (everyone on mandatory wets at the start) or a SC midway during the race. It also seems new intermediates are better than new wets in any condition.
Canada 2011 should have never gotten that rain delay of 2 hours. When they finally started, everyone immediatly went to inters. More races with rain had long SC periods so the teams could go on to inters right away. It really makes rain races a lost art these days.
That's PRECISELY the problem with aquaplaning. Any standing water on track the cars turn into canoes and just skid along on their plank. So they have to wait till there are no puddles, at least on the racing line. Waiting for no puddles means inters, there is no way to fix that problem without *mandating* a minimum amount of ground clearance, and good luck with that now everybody figured out how to bend their tea tray under load etc.
#38
Posted 30 March 2015 - 09:36
They can add more radius to the wet and intermediate tires than they are doing now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rain tires have a larger radius than the inters, so everyone wants to race on the inters.
Just give teams free reign in damper/suspension setup, ride height, wing setting etc without changing parts. If it rains and you slowboat off the track, it is your own silly mistake. Don't come complaining to the stewards you didn't have a wet setup.
One a sidenote
The Zonta/Mika/Michael overtake happened due to a difference in wet/dry setup (race was mostly to dry for the Ferrari and sometimes to wet for the McLaren).
#39
Posted 30 March 2015 - 10:14
You know what the real problem is? PARC FERME. Teams and drivers have to GUESS and SET their settings on the saturday BEFORE qualifying to go with what they have straight into the race 1.5 days later and when it's not clear what those weather conditions are going to be, the cars are GOING to face problems because they aren't SUITED to the conditions. People also can't excel anymore for making better or different setup choices because the luck factor has replaced what they could do with the car.
/rant.
Edited by Jejking, 30 March 2015 - 10:15.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 30 March 2015 - 10:22
If there's a speed at which they can trundle round safely, then they should go. Anything faster than that is motor racing.
#41
Posted 30 March 2015 - 10:29
You know what the real problem is? PARC FERME. Teams and drivers have to GUESS and SET their settings on the saturday BEFORE qualifying to go with what they have straight into the race 1.5 days later and when it's not clear what those weather conditions are going to be, the cars are GOING to face problems because they aren't SUITED to the conditions. People also can't excel anymore for making better or different setup choices because the luck factor has replaced what they could do with the car.
/rant.
And so they choose a dry setup, knowing they can play the Safety Car(d) everytime a shower shows up near the track.
#42
Posted 30 March 2015 - 10:53
Just make the wet tires taller and that's that.
IT raises the car up an extra inch and if they had that alread last year then Jules Bianchi accident would NEVER have happened or the crash that led to the crane to come out on the track in the first place.
#43
Posted 30 March 2015 - 10:56
Just make the wet tires taller and that's that.
IT raises the car up an extra inch and if they had that alread last year then Jules Bianchi accident would NEVER have happened or the crash that led to the crane to come out on the track in the first place.
Sutil and Bianchi were both driving on the Intermediate tyre when they crashed.
Edited by Nonesuch, 30 March 2015 - 10:56.
#44
Posted 30 March 2015 - 10:56
Speaking of rain; why do they insist on having Japan when it's monsoon season?
#45
Posted 30 March 2015 - 11:26
It doesn't solve the visibility problem though.Just make the wet tires taller and that's that.
IT raises the car up an extra inch and if they had that alread last year then Jules Bianchi accident would NEVER have happened or the crash that led to the crane to come out on the track in the first place.
The aerodynamic advances over the years have meant that more and more water gets sucked up out of the surface and turned into spray. This causes two problems, the obvious one of drivers having difficulty seeing the car ahead, although the rain light does help. The real problem is that they cannot see the flag signals and flag marshals cannot see the cars. TV cameras do not adequately convey the problem as they are often looking down onto the track or from the side. It is much worse when you are trying to look along the length of the track. There was (not sure if it still applied) an unwritten rule that if you cannot see the next flag point then it is probably not safe to run a session.
The spray effect is made worse at many GP tracks as the effects of grandstands on either side of the circuit help trap the spray and prevent any wind dissipating it.
By the time enough water has been sucked out of the surface the track has probably become too dry for a wet tyre to last more than a few laps.
Edited by ExFlagMan, 30 March 2015 - 11:27.
#46
Posted 30 March 2015 - 11:36
Different situations. Nobody's suggesting they race with a digger at the side of the track, but there's no reason they can't race in the wet. As Martin Brundle said this weekend, the throttle works both ways.
Two Words:
Jules Bianchi.
That is all.
#47
Posted 30 March 2015 - 11:40
I think the cuts in the wet tyres needs to be improved to clear more water than the 60ltr/sec we currently have. Perhaps increase the diameter like bridgestone did?
But that would increase spray, reducing the (already poor) visibility of the following driver - and visibility seems to be the biggest complaint that drivers make in such conditions.
It's annoying, because we all used to love wet races. Now they mean long waits under red flags or a ridiculous number of laps behind the safety car.
#48
Posted 30 March 2015 - 13:14
Perhaps they should build some infravision in the visor.
#49
Posted 30 March 2015 - 13:28
But that would increase spray, reducing the (already poor) visibility of the following driver - and visibility seems to be the biggest complaint that drivers make in such conditions.
It's annoying, because we all used to love wet races. Now they mean long waits under red flags or a ridiculous number of laps behind the safety car.
I haven't seen them crashing in each other during the rain so they manage to find a way.
Of course they complain, but that's their "job".
I remember MS crashing in DC at SPA'98 and people just accepted it. If the visibility is poor, drive slower until you feel safe. Let ones that can race, race
#50
Posted 30 March 2015 - 13:37
I haven't seen them crashing in each other during the rain so they manage to find a way.
Of course they complain, but that's their "job".
I remember MS crashing in DC at SPA'98 and people just accepted it. If the visibility is poor, drive slower until you feel safe. Let ones that can race, race
the problem isnt just crashing on the car ahead, the problem is collecting an accident ahead. Picture guy A stalling in the middle of the track. Guy B arrives at the scene, swerves. Guy C in guy b's spray just collects the parked car. Then you get into can they see flags? and if not is it "safe" to race