Visibility in F1 cars (Vettel rejoining track in Monza 2019)

Does Senna actually use reverse there, or just puts it into neutral, and lets the momentum of the car continue him in that direction ?

Not sure if that was the case

Yes I think I've got muddled up, maybe getting confused with starter motors. 

Curious we don't have spotters in F1 despite all this GPS tech. And reversing would be the only way to get better mirror view as well as rejoin at a safer angle. Stroll was on the track, reversing not an option. Also, Vettel being there made it risky as drivers could overlook Stroll having seen a yellow and a misplaced car.

Well, F1 has been pretty clear that the drivers "drive the car 'alone and unaided' and are not being 'coached' from the pit wall". Though I'm not sure what's currently allowed or not.

But I don't think there's a general problem if everyone just stay calm during incidents. If you spin, you want to rejoin asap, but obviously taking a route that's not on the racing line. Maybe Vettel could have reversed into the grass and correct the car there, I don't know. But if there are double yellow flags showing, it's likely that a car is in the middle of the road and about to rejoin. Stroll should have stopped the car completely, as stopping is also required by the rules.

I think by now Michael Masi have realized how much work and interpretation F1 rule book requires.

Why wouldn't an engineer, who's watching the action on tv, become a spotter for the driver? 

All of this technology, but we don't communicate at the most important time. It makes no sense.

 

Regulations:

 

 

If you cannot see, you cannot be sure that it is safe to re-join.

 

 

 

This is the only mention regarding using reverse gear that I can find.

 

Isn't there something in the ISC about driving contra-traffic? It's not usually enforced particularly rigorously, as far as I can tell, against cars that are recovering from a spin (which is the only time it ever crops up, of course). I saw Jean-Denis Delatraz penalised for driving contra traffic at Interlagos once, but he was facing the traffic(!). I've never seen it enforced against a reversing car.

On the other hand I've seen lots of cars reversing away from the barrier, or away from other cars, at Monaco, travelling contra-traffic, without being penalised. I fact I seem to remember Nico Rosberg being roasted on this very forum for (among other things) failing to reverse his car onto the circuit having gone off at Mirabeau.

They do have spotters to some extent. I think it was Lewis, maybe Leclerc, who had his engineer constantly saying that somebody was immediately behind him. 

Jacques Villeneuve relied on Craig Pollack as a spotter at the start of races in 1999, I seem to recall. Which might explain why he kept crashing.

Presumably that sort of thing had to stop briefly when the radio ban came in, until that was (predictably) forgotten?

There was a time when it could be very hard to find reverse, particularly with conventional clutch/maunal box set ups, but I thought reverse gear was much more reliable/usable these days?

I think we can agree that visibility to the sides and rear is very limited. So the driver by himself cannot be 100% sure that it is safe to rejoin. We also cannot rely on radio messages or marshals, because they are not always available or visible. In any case the cars travel so fast that a safe time to join can suddenly became a very unsafe moment. The only way forward is to increase the driver's visibility by adding cameras around the car and screens inside the cockpit.

Perhaps if Vettel has tarmac runoff instead of grass, he may have been able to regain control and rejoin safely but that is an argument for another day, eh?

Or if it was gravel he would have been out of the race so not able to rejoin?

Perhaps if Vettel has tarmac runoff instead of grass, he may have been able to regain control and rejoin safely but that is an argument for another day, eh?

The spin was fully on the track. He wasn't out of control on the grass. He intentionally let the car reverse there to get off track. There would have been no problem reversing more on grass and then rejoin safely.

Official video: https://youtu.be/FYByqW_9cto

Actually, I would say the only safe way forward is to copy Indycar and neutralise the track and deploy the safety car when a car leaves the circuit. As we saw yesterday, at least two cars were not in a position to stop under yellows, regardless of Vettel’s actions, and that is the bigger problem here. Adding cameras and screens is a nonsense when we’re already claiming drivers have too much going on in the cockpit as is. There was no way for Vettel to know when to proceed without a marshal entering the track to guide him. Therefore, there should have been a safety car immediately.

Perhaps if Vettel has tarmac runoff instead of grass, he may have been able to regain control and rejoin safely but that is an argument for another day, eh?

How can he reverse safely when he has restricted visibility of what he is reversing into? Then, how can he possibly see what cars are coming to know when to rejoin the track?

How can he reverse safely when he has restricted visibility of what he is reversing into? Then, how can he possibly see what cars are coming to know when to rejoin the track?

This video gives a pretty good idea of the visibility. I was surprised how good the mirrors are.

https://youtu.be/5y243oh2Ryw

Actually, I would say the only safe way forward is to copy Indycar and neutralise the track and deploy the safety car when a car leaves the circuit. As we saw yesterday, at least two cars were not in a position to stop under yellows, regardless of Vettel’s actions, and that is the bigger problem here. Adding cameras and screens is a nonsense when we’re already claiming drivers have too much going on in the cockpit as is. There was no way for Vettel to know when to proceed without a marshal entering the track to guide him. Therefore, there should have been a safety car immediately.

Perhaps if Vettel has tarmac runoff instead of grass, he may have been able to regain control and rejoin safely but that is an argument for another day, eh?

The SC would have been a massive over-reaction. Even more so than the 10s stop-go penalty, which was itself preposterously harsh.

A very brief VSC, on the other hand, might have been a sensible way of handling it. To be honest, though, I don't think race control reacts to things quickly enough to be able to use the VSC in that way.

It was, in part, a misjudgement by Stroll. Vettel was moving very slowly. His motion wasn't erratic or unpredictable. Stroll could see Vettel. Stroll could see that Vettel would be unable to see him. He therefore had no reason to think Vettel was going to stop once he had started to move. The only reason Stroll tried to squeeze through is because his own excessive speed under yellows left him with no other option. None of that absolves Vettel from the charge of rejoining unsafely, but Vettel wasn't solely to blame for the contact.

F1 cars are not driven on the road, visibility is restricted in part for safety reasons, the driver car has much wrap around head protection as possible. If you've ever driven a van, you'll know that sideways visibility is also limited. Van drivers have to drive taking that issue into account when they come to junctions. Those who don't cause accidents. The design of racing cars should not be altered to make allowances for hot-headed idiots, whilst reducing accident impact safety. Vettel was a dick yesterday. The FIA needed to make an example of his actions. Making the old - but others did the same - excuse won't wash. Last week Vettel was upset over the death of another driver, yesterday he almost caused another one himself, but comes away with his usual "Why pick on me" whining.

Visibility isn't restricted for saftey. All the ridiculous architecture around the drivers head there supposedly for saftey just makes seeing anywhere other than pretty much straight ahead impossible. Hence we have drivers pushing cars alongside off the track and incidents like this. But hey the Halo has apparently already saved lives!! Ffs. 

 

 

It was, in part, a misjudgement by Stroll. Vettel was moving very slowly. His motion wasn't erratic or unpredictable. Stroll could see Vettel. Stroll could see that Vettel would be unable to see him. He therefore had no reason to think Vettel was going to stop once he had started to move. The only reason Stroll tried to squeeze through is because his own excessive speed under yellows left him with no other option. None of that absolves Vettel from the charge of rejoining unsafely, but Vettel wasn't solely to blame for the contact.

Bollocks. Stroll couldnt do anything else. No one immediately hits the brakes or slows 50% when seeing a yellow. Stroll did pretty well to avoid more contact.

Glad nobody was hurt. Really stupid from Seb, and it's the 2nd time he leaves the track and squeezes a car when rejoining. First time he wasn't in full control excuse, now he couldn't see excuse. Both excuses just hiding that he was more anxious to rejoin than to think about the other cars on the track

Why are they stil messing around with mirrors? Isn't it about time it's changed to rear- and sideview camera's? Use the halo to stash the screens, connect it to the live feed, and nobody can argue about the visibillity...

Just my thoughts...

Gr.Jeroen

Halo is a bad spot to put in screens, also putting camera + screen would be heavier than mirrors much likely, also would hardly put any benefit over mirrors anyway, plus its another electric thing that could fail.

I always thought cameras instead of mirrors is one of those futuristic but also stupid ideas that don't really improve anything.

What? Nothing you say make any of what he did ok.

Injured horse lol what is this crap.

I didn't say it was okay, I contextualized his actions and raised the issue of how people are ganging up on Vettel at every chance now. I'm sure they have waited a long time for this.

Halo is a bad spot to put in screens, also putting camera + screen would be heavier than mirrors much likely, also would hardly put any benefit over mirrors anyway, plus its another electric thing that could fail.
I always thought cameras instead of mirrors is one of those futuristic but also stupid ideas that don't really improve anything.

I'm NOT defending Vettel at all here but it is very easy to say 'he should have waited for the marshals' or 'he should have reversed' but when you're a racing driver and all your hardwired to do is do the fastest lap possible or the fastest race possible, your mindset is to not wait and you have to get going as soon as you have stopped as soon as possible.

He took a massive risk and it looked pretty stupid but he doesn't know how long to wait, he doesn't want to lose more time and in the heat of the moment you don't care about safety and want to get moving again rather than waiting for the whole of the field to go by or wait for a marshal to tell you what to do.

EVERY other driver on the grid would have done exactly the same as what Vettel did, they are racing drivers.

Of course though, the penalty is completely right and even a giving him a black flag would be justifiable too.

No way he selected reverse. We would have just had the clutch in. McLaren were still using a manual H box in 91.

The last H and V12 WDC. 

=D

Bollocks. Stroll couldnt do anything else. No one immediately hits the brakes or slows 50% when seeing a yellow. Stroll did pretty well to avoid more contact.

"Nobody else slows down" is, of course, the oldest excuse in the book for not respecting yellow flags.

Cameras instead of mirrors means you can put a screen where it’s easily seen by the driver while not compromising line of sight. Get mirror placement wrong and all a driver can see are his rear tyres and wing.

Where would you put the screens though? Cockpit is ridiculously tiny, theres barely only space for the steering wheel and for the drivers arms and hands

I didn't say it was okay, I contextualized his actions and raised the issue of how people are ganging up on Vettel at every chance now. I'm sure they have waited a long time for this.

What, since Silverstone?

Where would you put the screens though? Cockpit is ridiculously tiny, theres barely only space for the steering wheel and for the drivers arms and hands

To which extent could/should Stroll have slowed down more? Did he have yellow flags, visual? At what speed should one zip by a moving race that is not on race pace, not on the racing line?
You can only make contact if you get too close too quick. Similar to Kimi/Max 2nd contact in Spa.

What was Stroll's visibility and responsibility?

They could go in the traditional mirror spots next to the cockpit. The actual mirrors are much more outboard on modern cars.

They would need to be incredibly good and bright screens to be seen properly in the sun, try that with your smartphone

A reasonable argument against using reverse is that the likelyhood of getting stuck out there is high. They are not driving WRC cars. I'm convinced any driver would do exactly like Vettel. Most of the times they get away with it, sometimes not. This time he looked silly, that is one outcome. In terms of silly moves Ricardo reversing in to another car still beats this, his excuse was only that he did not bother to look in his mirrors as he was in a hurry.

that's exact the same argument people made for vettel in canada. every other driver would do exactly the same

funny, it's vettel that got 2 (twice !!!) in this position all on his own

Why wouldn't an engineer, who's watching the action on tv, become a spotter for the driver?
All of this technology, but we don't communicate at the most important time. It makes no sense.

Engineer: “ Hang on Seb, the director has cut to the crowd again!”
Vettel: “ **** it I’m going!”
Engineer: “WAIT! WAIT!”
Vettel: “S**t I crash”
Engineer: “**** FOM”

all cars have gps though

What, since Silverstone?

Since last season. Goodwill was exausted after Monza - more or less - and then people began to tally up his errors since 2016. Much of the criticism is deserved and his driving has not resmebled that of a record breaking 4 WDC, but now it's borderline hysteric with people assuming drivers in the heat of competition should have the cognition we have in hindsight from armchairs.

Since last season. Goodwill was exausted after Monza - more or less - and then people began to tally up his errors since 2016. Much of the criticism is deserved and his driving has not resmebled that of a record breaking 4 WDC, but now it's borderline hysteric with people assuming drivers in the heat of competition should have the cognition we have in hindsight from armchairs.

What comments were these exactly? In all the things I’ve seen he’s looked depressed and talked about how he made a mistake.

The deflections by talking about a lack of visibility and blaming the high cockpit sides.

Edited by tomjol, 09 September 2019 - 20:20.

Interesting that there were lots of quotes and soundbites around safety last week. But it seems safety is only of a concern when positions aren't on the table.

And therein lies the crux of the problem between safety and competition.

I'm NOT defending Vettel at all here but it is very easy to say 'he should have waited for the marshals' or 'he should have reversed' but when you're a racing driver and all your hardwired to do is do the fastest lap possible or the fastest race possible, your mindset is to not wait and you have to get going as soon as you have stopped as soon as possible.

He took a massive risk and it looked pretty stupid but he doesn't know how long to wait, he doesn't want to lose more time and in the heat of the moment you don't care about safety and want to get moving again rather than waiting for the whole of the field to go by or wait for a marshal to tell you what to do.

EVERY other driver on the grid would have done exactly the same as what Vettel did, they are racing drivers.

Of course though, the penalty is completely right and even a giving him a black flag would be justifiable too.

They can't turn head much, i accept that fact, but when you only turn your eyes you can look full beside you and when even turn head very slight, angle visibility increases massive. Everyone can try it at the spot.

Just how i experience it, don't pint me on the numbers. When head is straight, and only turn eyes i can watch let's say 5/10% behind my shoulder line. When turn head 1 or 2 % it seems space i can see now behind shoulder line is doubled at minimum.

So, for me, "not/hardly" able turning head isn't a excuse.

They can't turn head much, i accept that fact, but when you only turn your eyes you can look full beside you and when even turn head very slight, angle visibility increases massive. Everyone can try it at the spot.

Just how i experience it, don't pint me on the numbers. When head is straight, and only turn eyes i can watch let's say 5/10% behind my shoulder line. When turn head 1 or 2 % it seems space i can see now behind shoulder line is doubled at minimum.

So, for me, "not/hardly" able turning head isn't a excuse.

"Nobody else slows down" is, of course, the oldest excuse in the book for not respecting yellow flags.

Put a track map on the steering wheel display that shows the locations of all the cars in real time, similar to what you see in racing games.

The problem here is that the bit in the regulations "be prepared to stop" has ben overriden by a instruction from Charlie back then that lifting is fine, and Stroll did more than that even.

We literally had a driver setting purple mini sectors on the crash scene on saturday and getting away with this.

Yes, and to be clear, I'm not saying drivers should interpret the yellow flag rules literally and drive accordingly. They'd be chucking away seconds per lap compared to the others every time a yellow flag came out.

It always used to be accepted, though, that crashing under yellows was very heavily frowned upon and would get you in trouble. The reason being that, if you lose control of your car or run into something, you put the stewards in a position where they can no longer pretend that they thought you were complying with the rules, which say you have to reduce speed significantly and be prepared to stop. From a liability standpoint, the last thing they want is to have to admit that they were turning a blind eye to safety-critical rule-breaking. So the application of the rule always used to be that, if you're too quick in a yellow flag zone, you would probably get away with it as long as nothing happened, but it's entirely at your own risk. If you crash, you're in trouble.

I was therefore a bit surprised to see a driver piling into a yellow flag zone, tripping over an obstacle that was barely moving, and nobody batting an eyelid or thinking that it matters.

There seems to be an underlying notion, shared by many fans and drivers, that if the track is going to be blocked there will be a VSC, SC or red flag, and therefore it is no longer really necessary for drivers to follow the ISC in yellow flag zones. But when an accident of whatever seriousness happens, the flag marshal's first response is to put yellow flags out. Other responses take longer. Drivers came upon the wreckage of the tragic, fatal F2 accident (which was itself a secondary incident) having only been warned of the danger by way of yellow flags.