47 replies to this topic

[JHSingo]

 

So, I figured that on a day where we're unlikely to see much action in F1 land, this might prompt a bit of discussion.

 

Formula E has become yet another form of racing to adopt a Virtual Safety Car like system in FCY. It was brought in to Formula One at the start of this year and has been used several times this season. Before that WEC were the first to introduce slow zones.

 

The question is, do you as a fan like these systems, or would you rather just have a regular safety car/caution period?

 

As I said in the Formula E thread, I'm not really a fan. I understand what they're designed to do. That they mean incidents are dealt with quicker, and that the racing is less interrupted. And, of course, it also improves safety for marshals, with drivers unable to just blindly ignore yellow flags anymore.

 

But, despite all that, I'm still struggling to like the idea. In long distance racing it probably makes more sense. But in sprint racing, I don't think it really fits in. Motorsport is supposed to be entertaining - and put simply, a safety car/restart adds more excitement into a race than a VSC type thing does. If your race gets wrecked through unfortunate timing of a safety car, well, tough luck.

 

For me, it's another example where things are perhaps becoming a little too sanitised and overly controlled in motorsport. But what do you think?

[Marklar]

Generally I have the attitude that the sport should be as much as it is possible not influenced by external influences - and the SC is one. But my issue with all these new ideas is that it is also not entirely fair  and - more importantely - that it even caused safety issues (pileups). So I'm not really a fan of it, but it doesnt bother me at all as it makes the race overall a bit fairer.

[np93]

Not a fan of the VSC and FCY, I think the slow zones do everything they're intended for i.e allowing marshals to clear a minor incident, without stopping the racing elsewhere on the circuit. Why do they feel the need to completely neutralise the race when it's only a small section of circuit that's affected?

[sportyskells]

at least its keeps the race going via VSC and FCY without the need for SC and its does not spoil a race in my book. 

[maximilian]

As long as there's no funny stuff going on, the VSC is a good idea, as shown in the Formula E race just earlier - rather than the tedious process of getting the SC out, collecting the field, and getting the SC off again, there is too much time wasted.  Today's 2 yellows were speedily over, without disrupting the feel for the race too much, and even though some drivers seemed to complain that the gaps were changing, it still seems a lot less disturbing to the race flow than artificially bunching up the field.  A real SC can make sense on an oval, but on a road/street course, a VSC seems to work much better.

 

Generally not a fan of yellows changing the complexion of the race, and often it seems they are only too happy to throw a FCY when it seems unnecessary - but with street circuits it seems pretty much inevitable.  VSC helps speeding up that process.  I hate when the yellow keeps dragging on for no apparent reason, or because they are shuffling lapped cars to the back/unlapping them.   Just RACE already!!

[anbeck]

It might be a problem on my side, but when I saw "FCY" during today's FE race, my brain translated it as "F.... you!"....

 

Other than that: I'm ok with it when VSC/FCY is used as a replacement of a local double-waved yellow for a lap or so. But they should send out an old-school safety car for those cases which they would have used it if before VSC/FCY was implemented.

[Volcano70]

Not a fan of the VSC and FCY, I think the slow zones do everything they're intended for i.e allowing marshals to clear a minor incident, without stopping the racing elsewhere on the circuit. Why do they feel the need to completely neutralise the race when it's only a small section of circuit that's affected?

Agreed, Indycar should use those.

[Nonesuch]

The slow zones are fantastic. They are mostly what drivers should already be doing under yellow flags, but at least a zone regulates the time loss more effectively than F1's bogus 'a few tenths slower than your best time' approach.

 

I'm not too keen on the FCY and VSC unless the medical car or an ambulance is driving on the circuit.

 

An ill timed FCY can ruin the race just as effectively as a safety car can. If used when there is just one car off in one corner it quickly seems like bad stewarding to me (see: Fuji WEC 2015).

Edited by Nonesuch, 24 October 2015 - 15:18.

[TheUltimateWorrier]

I like it and there's even some potential for the countdown. 

 

 

... Full Course Yellow is go!"

[BRG]

Anything that removes the safety car from blundering out on front of the wrong car, disrupting the race for twice as many laps as would ne otherwise necessary, whilst they desperately try to sort things out, is good for me.

 

The sooner it is all controlled by a button in race control, the better,

[Peat]

There's no way of making VSC fair, unless you close the pits.

There's no way of making Slow Zones fair, unless you ensure that every car passes through that zone the same number of times.

I don't mind SC's (with the exception of Le Mans/Nurburgring). They can zazz up otherwise dull races. Today's FormulaE could have done with one. If it's not meant to be a bit of fun, what is it?

[sabjit]

I dont like how a safety feature now seems to have become some sort of gimmick to make races more interesting.

 

I like VSC and FCY.

[August]

Yellows breed yellows, I'm all for FCY to avoid SC periods.

[SenorSjon]

Not a fan of the VSC and FCY, I think the slow zones do everything they're intended for i.e allowing marshals to clear a minor incident, without stopping the racing elsewhere on the circuit. Why do they feel the need to completely neutralise the race when it's only a small section of circuit that's affected?

Because it prevents pile-ups when the track is green again. Yes it is more exciting, but a FCY is more fair to the track positions of the drivers and no unlapping of cars. A current SC takes at least 5-6 laps and is a bore to watch.

[kapow]

Because it prevents pile-ups when the track is green again. Yes it is more exciting, but a FCY is more fair to the track positions of the drivers and no unlapping of cars. A current SC takes at least 5-6 laps and is a bore to watch.

Simply don't allow lapped cars to overtake, either keep them where they are or making them drop to the back of the line.

I don't know why the FIA have made it so complicated.

[ch103]

FCY - yes.  I prefer this.

 

VSC - no, too difficult to police.

[V8 Fireworks]

Of course, VSC and such safety measures are a good idea

 

HOWEVER they NEED to call the safety car when there is debris, image of the crazy Russian marshall stumbling across the track to retrieve debris, barely in time to avoid the race cars is unacceptable.   

[anbeck]

Ok, now with Rosberg's move, I'm totally against VSC. It doesn't seem to work. He basically stole 2 places, because he was nowhere near attacking Ricciardo, let alone Kvyat.

[SophieB]

"VSC, you should keep the gap, and Rosberg wasn't right up our arse, he was a few seconds behind," said Ricciardo, who finished 10th having led at one stage.

"So then when I saw him already close on us under virtual safety car, I was thinking, 'surely he'll back off again'.

 

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/121534

[Marklar]

 

"VSC, you should keep the gap, and Rosberg wasn't right up our arse, he was a few seconds behind," said Ricciardo, who finished 10th having led at one stage.

You just have to match (not driving faster than) the delta times and if the race leader is driving 2 seconds slower than he would be allowed to (like Hamilton did) than its logical that everyone behind will be up to everyones arse. Thats exactly the reason why I dislike the VSC in the way they are using it.

 

L5 (VSC start)

HAM  2:05.181

KVY  2:06.246 (+ 1.416)

RIC   2:08.542 (+ 4.906)

ROS 2:07.601 (+7.001)

 

(Ricciardo was clearly sleeping here as the driver ahead should be faster in the 1st lap than the driver behind)

 

L6

HAM  2:17.859

KVY  2:17.606 (+ 1.163)

RIC   2:16.874 (+ 3.921)

ROS 2:15.522 (+ 4.664)

 

(Hamilton is driving 2.3 s slower than Rosberg, normally he should be on par, Kvyat who is at this point right behind Hamilton cant drive faster, but Riccardo was stil almost 3 s behind his team mate and stil he was over a second to slow)

 

L7

HAM 2:17.016

KVY 2:16.748 (+ 0.895)

RIC 2:14.933 (+ 1.838)

ROS 2:15.082 (+ 2.730)

 

(Hamilton continues beeing slow, now they are all within 2.7 s)

 

Overall Ricciardo did a poor job in L5 and L6 considering that he had nobody backing him off. However it didnt mattered in the end because Hamilton slowed them in he end extremely down anyway. As I said that is the problem of the VSC, but it was already known before this race.

Edited by Marklar, 28 October 2015 - 08:13.

[Wuzak]

They should have a speed limiter on for the VSC. It could be set up for different situations and/or circuits. Monaco, for instance, would have a lower VSC speed than pretty much everywhere else, and depending on the conditions there should be 2-3 different speed options. If they are all on the limiter they should all be running at the same speed.

[SenorSjon]

Hamilton helped Rosberg I guess. They should maintain gaps just like they maintain delta times.

[Retrofly]

I don't think the VSC is perfect, but by god is a full safety car tedious.

 

The whole back markers unlapping themselves is pretty ridiculous and unnecessary.

[Ruusperi]

I'd have:

No tractor needed or car stopped inside the corner = yellows

Tractor needed outside the corner = slow zone for that corner/sector only

Cars stopped near or within the white lines (taking some time to recover) = FCY/VSC

Medical car needed on the track = SC

Lot's of debris in the middle of the track or barrier damage = Red flag?

 

SC sucks, because it takes always 5 laps with lapped cars passing and even though the incident could be handled under slow zone . But I guess it's too dangerous to have slow zones in F1?

Edited by Ruusperi, 28 October 2015 - 08:23.

[RubalSher]

VSC works way better than SCs. The SCs change the complexion of the race, for example Alonso last race and Webber a few years back almost onto the podium after he was a lap down.

 

I would much rather have reverse grids to generate excitement before the race as opposed to interfering with the race mid-way.

[Nonesuch]

You just have to match (not driving faster than) the delta times and if the race leader is driving 2 seconds slower than he would be allowed to (like Hamilton did) than its logical that everyone behind will be up to everyones arse.

 

Montoya and Räikkönen pulling a stunt somewhat similar to this at Spa in 2005, just in reverse, with the second car backing up the field so the first could get a free pitstop. GrandPrix.com summarized it as follows at the time: "... bringing out the safety car - and nearly all the field took advantage and pitted, Montoya racing ahead of Raikkonen so that his pitstop was completed when his team mate and the rest of the field arrived in the pits." If I recall correctly, this led to the 'keep max. X car lengths' rule that later caught out Vettel in Hungary.

 

The simple solution, which is used at the WEC (though not all the time, much to my disappointment) is to have proper slow zones. Nobody will want to driver significantly slower through them because the next zone they'll be racing for position again.

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

The problem I suppose with slow zones (and this applies to WEC too) is you could have for example the race leader 20 seconds clear, gets to the slow zone while the driver in 2nd is going full pelt, then just as the leader is getting to the end of the slow zone, the slow zone is removed, meaning the driver in 2nd place can still go full pelt and go from 20 seconds behind to 5 seconds behind just because of the timing of when the slow zone ends and where they are on the track. That and the fact that you can't guarantee everyone will go through it the same number of times before it's lifted.

[Ruusperi]

The problem I suppose with slow zones (and this applies to WEC too) is you could have for example the race leader 20 seconds clear, gets to the slow zone while the driver in 2nd is going full pelt, then just as the leader is getting to the end of the slow zone, the slow zone is removed, meaning the driver in 2nd place can still go full pelt and go from 20 seconds behind to 5 seconds behind just because of the timing of when the slow zone ends and where they are on the track. That and the fact that you can't guarantee everyone will go through it the same number of times before it's lifted.

Yes, it's unfair. But if there were mere double yellow flags that require a driver to slow down, they too would only be momentary and unequally impact only some drivers' race.

Random luck is a part of the nature of F1. The VSC once again takes all the unpredictability away, because no one gains and no one loses times. Plus I think it's silly that for example a driver must slow down at Stavelot just because currently there's a stopped car at Les Combes.

Edited by Ruusperi, 28 October 2015 - 10:00.

[sosidge]

I really dislike the VSC. It is dull. The cars just go around slowly for a bit, you lose a sense of what is happening in the race, and the restart itself is free of drama (last weekend's restart was the exception and I don't know if Lewis was deliberately backing the field up to give Nico a chance of a pass, or if he was just as bored as I was).

 

I'd rather have a full SC if there is debris on the track that can't be dealt with under waved yellows. Let's not forget that the reason for the tragic accident that cost Jules Bianchi his life was not the presence or otherwise of the safety car, it was the presence of a tractor within the track area. As long as we ensure that heavy plant NEVER goes on track without a full safety car, then that danger will not present itself (although I seem to recall a tractor on track before the SC already this year,can't remember where though).

[Lotus53B]

The whole back markers unlapping themselves is pretty ridiculous and unnecessary.

This.

I hate the delays caused by backmarkers unlapping themselves.  I'd prefer to see them be relegated to the back of the train.

[SenorSjon]

I rather see them don't mess with the race order at all. Backmarkers already passed by the leader already costed the leader time. Why should the rest get the pass for free? 

 

But slow zones are quite dangerous imo. Rather have a VSC or FCY than a spot on the track where everyone brakes just like for the pitlane speed limit. Accidents happen that way. Just look at some big LeMans (near) crashes at slow zones the last couple of years.

[SonJR]

Visually I much prefer the SC to VSC. I agree on the backmarkers though, the un-lapping is just a tiresome procedure.

I always kinda cringe when I see a yellow in whatever section for debris on/near track, because you really can't trust a racing driver not to try to gain an advantage even under yellow.

[RubalSher]

I hate the delays caused by backmarkers unlapping themselves.  I'd prefer to see them be relegated to the back of the train.

 

We had a furore back when backmarkers would not unlap coz they would interfere with the race re-start.

 

The idea to have them unlapped was to prevent them interfering. However at the last GP, Nasr and Rossi were already lapped by everyone else and were yet allowed to unlap themselves. They in no way would have interfered with the re-start and yet we had to wait an extra lap to allow them to unlap themselves. Made no sense.

[SenorSjon]

That furore was also there the first time this rule was thought out and SC's took forever.

[RubalSher]

I do agree they should be asked to drop back as opposed to unlap themselves.

[FullOppositeLock]

They should have a speed limiter on for the VSC. It could be set up for different situations and/or circuits. Monaco, for instance, would have a lower VSC speed than pretty much everywhere else, and depending on the conditions there should be 2-3 different speed options. If they are all on the limiter they should all be running at the same speed.

 

This seems like the perfect solution to me if it is technically viable (as discussed in the stupid questions thread as well).

[FullOppositeLock]

I do agree they should be asked to drop back as opposed to unlap themselves.

 

Dropping back means that a driver who has just been caught by the race leader drops down the entire field, whereas a driver who was about to be lapped doesn't, which doesn't seem very fair to me either. 

[RubalSher]

Dropping back means that a driver who has just been caught by the race leader drops down the entire field, whereas a driver who was about to be lapped doesn't, which doesn't seem very fair to me either. 

 

Any interruption by definition would be unfair. I guess we are looking for a practical solution for lapped cars and dropping them back works best in my opinion.

 

As a counter argument, Rossi and Nasr were lapped by everyone in the field and because they knew they would be allowed to unlap themselves, they took an extra pit stop and dropped almost another lap back and took their own sweet time to make their way through to unlap themselves. When the message for them to unlap came on the screen, they were half a lap away at that point. This is not how it is supposed to work either.

[FerrariV12]

There's no way of making VSC fair, unless you close the pits.

There's no way of making Slow Zones fair, unless you ensure that every car passes through that zone the same number of times.

I don't mind SC's (with the exception of Le Mans/Nurburgring). They can zazz up otherwise dull races. Today's FormulaE could have done with one. If it's not meant to be a bit of fun, what is it?

 

Both of those first two points are true and no system of race interruption (aside from stoppage and aggregate timing I guess) is perfect, but it's a lot less unfair than bunching the entire field up (and that's even before you get into the business of removing lapped cars out of the way which makes it even worse, whether unlapping or dropping them to the tail of the field)

 

It is meant to be a bit of fun, but it's a matter of opinion, I find motor racing fun without the need to bunch the field up. If someone has a 20 second lead I get more enjoyment out of seeing if they can either extend it or have someone chase them down, rather than "meh who cares they'll probably have it wiped out by the SC before the end of the race".

 

Other forms of racing seem to get by without the need to have the competitors closed up too, whether it's running, cycling, rowing, sailing etc. If things get strung out in those forms then that's the way it goes, it's bothered me for years that it appears motorsport seems to be held to a higher standard when it comes to "entertainment" than other sports. The pure form is entertaining enough, that's why we became fans in the first place surely?

[Kalmake]

Dropping back means that a driver who has just been caught by the race leader drops down the entire field, whereas a driver who was about to be lapped doesn't, which doesn't seem very fair to me either. 

I think it's fair enough since you don't have to get lapped in the first place. I think the unlapping idea was copied from oval racing, where even fastest cars often get lapped during pit stops randomly. In F1, if you get lapped you were just too slow and back of line is where you were heading anyway.

[ANF]

Dropping back means that a driver who has just been caught by the race leader drops down the entire field, whereas a driver who was about to be lapped doesn't, which doesn't seem very fair to me either. 

Yes, it's very unfair. Let's say there was a close battle between driver A and driver B: driver A has just been lapped by the leader, and out comes the safety car. Unless A can unlap himself, the gap between A and B goes from 1 second to almost an entire lap. And if A is told to drop to the back, he's not only lapped by the leader but also by driver B!

I think they should keep the unlapping procedure but try to speed it up a bit.

Edited by ANF, 28 October 2015 - 14:39.

[FerrariV12]

Yes, it's very unfair. Let's say there was a close battle between driver A and driver B: driver A has just been lapped by the leader, and out comes the safety car. Unless A can unlap himself, the gap between A and B goes from 1 second to almost an entire lap. And if A is told to drop to the back, he's not only lapped by the leader but also by driver B!

I think they should keep the unlapping procedure but try to speed it up a bit.

 

I've generally been against unlapping when a safety car is called, but that's by far the best argument I've heard in favour of it (as opposed to "get those lapped cars out of the way to bunch the leaders up even more"). Of course the flip-side being the examples like Webber that time (and Verstappen in Singapore I think?) where they gain massively and get a better result than they would have gotten otherwise, so there's probably no right/wrong on this.

 

Another reason I prefer the VSC/FCY/slow zones where possible, to be honest.

[Ruusperi]

What about removing blue flag rules completely? After all, why should a driver get a free pass? Why make it easy for them?

If you want to overtake your competitor, it shouldn't matter if you're already done it once (or started in front of him). If you you want to lap everyone, you have to work for it.

Of course the downside is, that if there's a SC and driver A pits and gets behind traffic while driver B who didn't pit can now build a huge gap....Hmm.

[SophieB]

AMS F1 News ‏@ams_formula1  3h3 hours ago

Drivers ask for minimum speed rule during Virtual SafetyCar periods after Austin race. AMuS: http://bit.ly/1kUccRF  #f1

[Lights]

What about removing blue flag rules completely? After all, why should a driver get a free pass? Why make it easy for them?

If you want to overtake your competitor, it shouldn't matter if you're already done it once (or started in front of him). If you you want to lap everyone, you have to work for it.

Of course the downside is, that if there's a SC and driver A pits and gets behind traffic while driver B who didn't pit can now build a huge gap....Hmm.

 

A Grand Prix is a 305 km race. If you've already driven 200 km, why would you need to overtake someone who's done 195 km.

[Kobasmashi]

There's no way of making VSC fair, unless you close the pits.

There's no way of making Slow Zones fair, unless you ensure that every car passes through that zone the same number of times.

I don't mind SC's (with the exception of Le Mans/Nurburgring). They can zazz up otherwise dull races. Today's FormulaE could have done with one. If it's not meant to be a bit of fun, what is it?

 

Safety Cars are surely even less fair? You try telling someone who's just lost a 20 second lead that it's just a bit of fun to zazz up the race.

[MattK9]

I a motorsport fan/purist i much prefer the VSC or FCY instead of the safety car. Last weekend at Austin, Rosberg lost a near 10 second lead when the safety car came out. I dont see why the safety car had to be ontrack. In fact I dont think that there should ever be a safety car at all because the VSC is better and fairer. (yes i see that a safety bunches up the pack and can lead to better racing but that is unfair to drivers/team who have done well before the safety car)

 

The way the FCY was used in Formula E was much better than the VSC F1. In FE, Race control came over the radio to all drivers with a 10 second countdown to end of FCY with a speed limit during FCY. Simple but yet F1 gets even the most simple things wrong and makes them more complex than they need to be.

Edited by MattK9, 29 October 2015 - 10:46.

[ANF]

AMS F1 News ‏@ams_formula1  3h3 hours ago
Drivers ask for minimum speed rule during Virtual SafetyCar periods after Austin race. AMuS: http://bit.ly/1kUccRF  #f1

That's a very bad idea, mainly because it could be unsafe.

I think they should prohibit overtaking for the first 5 or 10 seconds after the VSC has ended. That would prevent ridiculous moves like the one Rosberg made on Ricciardo.