49 replies to this topic

[Clatter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/17209342?

Formula 1's governing body has rejected a move by teams to lower the pit lane speed limit during races.
Most teams backed a proposal to lower the limit from 100km/h (62mph) to 60 km/h (37mph) in the interest of safety.
But race director Charlie Whiting has told them he feels there is no need to make the change as there is no evidence that the current arrangement is unsafe.

Appears that CW is rather blinkered in his attitude here. Seems an accident has to actually happen before he will act. IMHO F1 is living on borrowed time as far as escaping a pit lane accident is concerned. We have had quite a few near misses in the last few seasons, it's only a matter of time.

[Risil]

Maybe it would cause more collisions. If a car on pit road is travelling slower, you're more likely to risk releasing your car into their path. At least, that's what a couple of people argued when they made that move in CART in 1999, after a very nasty incident at Milwaukee.

The best way to improve pit safety is to diminish the importance of fast pitwork.

[abulafiaF1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/17209342?



Appears that CW is rather blinkered in his attitude here. Seems an accident has to actually happen before he will act. IMHO F1 is living on borrowed time as far as escaping a pit lane accident is concerned. We have had quite a few near misses in the last few seasons, it's only a matter of time.

Although I do agree with CW in believing is not such a big issue nowadays, I think with the introduction of the electric power-only in the pitlane from 2014, this is definitely something that must be considered. Unless they outfit the cars with mega-speakers churning out V12 pre-recorded sounds at full blast...

[Clatter]

Maybe it would cause more collisions. If a car on pit road is travelling slower, you're more likely to risk releasing your car into their path. At least, that's what a couple of people argued when they made that move in CART in 1999, after a very nasty incident at Milwaukee.

The best way to improve pit safety is to diminish the importance of fast pitwork.

Your never going to get rid of the need for fast pitwork, but I've been in favour of slow pitlane speeds for a long time. I do believe it would be overall safer, and as I said I think F1 is overdue an accident there. But the other reason is I want to give more advantage to the guys who can make their tyres last. The ones who want to pit more often should lose more time.

The cynic in me believes that the main reason he has rejected the proposal is that he wants to ensure the pitlane spectacle for the VIP's. Afterall for many of them that's about all they see of the track.

Edited by Clatter, 29 February 2012 - 16:31.

[Risil]

Your never going to get rid of the need for fast pitwork, but I've been in favour of slow pitlane speeds for a long time. I do believe it would be overall safer, and as I said I think F1 is overdue an accident there. But the other reason is I want to give more advantage to the guys who can make their tyres last. The ones who want to pit more often should lose more time.

Not altogether, but certain changes have knock-on effects in pitstops. When refuelling was abolished I could swear we saw more tyres not being attached properly because tyre-changing became the only limiting factor for pitstop time. When pitstops were about how quickly you could put fuel in, we saw some nasty pit fires. Allowing cars to race for track position outside of pitstops -- mostly a grip issue -- will also decrease the importance of pitstops. It's pitting once the whole pack's been bunched up behind the safety car that pisses me off the most though. But short of "code 60" there's only so much you can do about that.

Still, every time I hear someone praise or speak approvingly of "fast pitwork", a little part of the motorsport enthusiast in me dies.

The cynic in me believes that the main reason he has rejected the proposal is that he wants to ensure the pitlane spectacle for the VIP's. Afterall for many of them that's about all they see of the track.

Don't rule it out.

Edited by Risil, 29 February 2012 - 16:42.

[Mediansoft]

It's simple... if you want to "get rid of the fastest possible time issue", just make it so a car has to stay a certain amount of time mimimum in its box, let's say that time is way over what is currently the "norm" like ... 10 seconds .. that would give the pit crew all the time they need to do their stuff in a proper not so hasty fashion and safety will improve! And as it's equal for all ... it doesn't harm the race .. besides the fact that you can't use the pits to shave off that 0.4sec ofc ...

[wingwalker]

Holy crap, I didn't see this one coming. I always assumed it's the teams who want the pitlane limit to be 100km/h because of race strategies and whatnots. I've never gotten around to start 'how F1 can be safer' thread (maybe it;s a good time now), but I always wanted to and first think I wanted to mention is what happens in the pits: train of cars going at 100km/h inches away from guys who have no recognition on what is going around them. 60 km/h would be a good solution imo, plus FIA needs to look at the 'safe release' policy cause it seems like in a lot of cases it was more of 'if, as it turned out, the release was safe, even barely, it was ok". Plus, any games like Vettel did on Hamilton (I think) in one of the GP's should be hit with huge penalties if they happen in the pits. Wrong call by Charlie, again.

[Risil]

I don't think it's a particularly pressing concern. After all, we haven't had anything like this.

There's also an argument that if you reduce the pitlane speed limit too much, you'll have more cars being released into traffic because they know the traffic, given the choice, would rather slow down than bend a front wing. At 100km/h there is no choice, and pitcrews will respect the cars on pit road. At 60km/h it's less "unsafe release" than "unsporting release".

Edited by Risil, 29 February 2012 - 17:23.

[TeamSideways]

The cynic in me believes that the main reason he has rejected the proposal is that he wants to ensure the pitlane spectacle for the VIP's. Afterall for many of them that's about all they see of the track.

this is as close as u can get to the dumbest conspiracy theory in the history of mankind

[olliek88]

I think thats a rather arrogant attitude to take from charlie, everything can be made safer and safer options should always be considered, its a cliche but "Prevention is better than cure"

We've seen a few pit incidents in the last year or two a lot of which would have had a lower level of risk had the pit speeds been a bit lower, Charlie will get royally f**ked should a mechanic get injured this year from a car doing a "D'ambrosio" or similar.

[Clatter]

I don't think it's a particularly pressing concern. After all, we haven't had anything like this.

Not yet, but they have been mighty close. The teams can recognize the danger and it makes no sense to wait until the accident happens before taking action.

[Mastah]

Which incidents in last years were related to speed limit in pitlane?

[Clatter]

Which incidents in last years were related to speed limit in pitlane?

Any of them are more dangerous the higher the speed.

[johnmhinds]

I know it seem counter intuitive but slowing the cars down increases the chances of unsafe release ending up in a crash because the cars coming down the pitlane take longer to pass a stopped car making the unsafe release window longer.

But of course any crash would be at a lower speed.

I'm sure Charlie has looked at all the options though.

[johnmhinds]

Any of them are more dangerous the higher the speed.

As Clarkson would say,: “Speed doesn't kill. Suddenly becoming stationary – thats what gets you!”

Edited by johnmhinds, 29 February 2012 - 19:00.

[olliek88]

As Clarkson would say,: “Speed doesn't kill. Suddenly becoming stationary – thats what gets you!”

Not if your a mechanic sat on your knees with a wheel gun in hand.

[Clatter]

As Clarkson would say,: “Speed doesn't kill. Suddenly becoming stationary – thats what gets you!”

Don't give Clarkson the credit for that one.

[Owenjf]

I know it seem counter intuitive but slowing the cars down increases the chances of unsafe release ending up in a crash because the cars coming down the pitlane take longer to pass a stopped car making the unsafe release window longer.

Not really, the window for 'release' is shorter as its much easier to judge the approaching cars position/time it will take to reach you.
The time taken to pass a car in the pits will be longer but thats only if you include the time when its along your car which doesnt really count for judging a realise.

Also at slower speeds the approaching driver can react and brake quicker/in a shorter distance.

CW's refusal is crazy though and like everyone has said, its only a matter of time at which point the teams will point to their request to lower the speeds and pin it on the FIA

[dau]

I think thats a rather arrogant attitude to take from charlie, everything can be made safer and safer options should always be considered, its a cliche but "Prevention is better than cure"[...]

You're right, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 60kph could still be very dangerous in case of a brake failure, but "safe" speeds would be unacceptably slow. Regarding the accident in Zolder, it looks like they actually HAD a pit lane speed limit of 60kph and the accident was caused by cooked brakes - though i have no idea why you would still pull into your pits when you're not sure if your brakes are working.

And i'd like to hear Whitings take on this. I suspect it's a bit more complex.

[Seanspeed]

But the other reason is I want to give more advantage to the guys who can make their tyres last. The ones who want to pit more often should lose more time.

But nobody would want to pit more. You're talking about adding like 10-15 seconds to a pitstop. Every team and driver would just converge on the same pit/tire strategy as a result.

[Risil]

You're right, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 60kph could still be very dangerous in case of a brake failure, but "safe" speeds would be unacceptably slow. Regarding the accident in Zolder, it looks like they actually HAD a pit lane speed limit of 60kph and the accident was caused by cooked brakes - though i have no idea why you would still pull into your pits when you're not sure if your brakes are working.

Do you mean the accident involving Reutemann and an Osella mechanic in 1981? The mechanic fell directly into the path of the Williams, there was no "pulling into the pits". The whole thing was basically typical Belgian organisation in the 1980s.

[Mastah]

Any of them are more dangerous the higher the speed.

But which were?

Wheels falling off? Nope. Unsafe releases? Nope. So? I really don't remember car narrowly missing someone in the pitlane.

[dau]

Do you mean the accident involving Reutemann and an Osella mechanic in 1981? The mechanic fell directly into the path of the Williams, there was no "pulling into the pits". The whole thing was basically typical Belgian organisation in the 1980s.

No, i mean last year's sportscar accident that Benson refers to in his article.

http://www.ten-tenth...ad.php?t=130348
http://www.oneightur...der/#more-19318

Edited by dau, 29 February 2012 - 19:32.

[Clatter]

But nobody would want to pit more. You're talking about adding like 10-15 seconds to a pitstop. Every team and driver would just converge on the same pit/tire strategy as a result.

Probably, but if there were enough of a performance gap between the tyres to make both strategies work then I think there would be more gambling going on. That was the one problem between the tyres last year.

[Clatter]

But which were?

Wheels falling off? Nope. Unsafe releases? Nope. So? I really don't remember car narrowly missing someone in the pitlane.

Any incident has more potential for danger the faster they are going. Just because it didn't happen last year doesn't mean it should be ignored. There have been several near misses with unsafe releases over the last few seasons, and any one of those could have had tragic consequences.

[zepunishment]

If you could do away with the lollypop man and have an automated release system with lights similar to ferrari's of 2008 then perhaps it would take away the factor of unsafe releases. e.g light won't go green if a car passes a sensor x metres away in the pitlane, of crosses the line if a car is in the box behind or in front of them. (ferrari's was still subject to human error, this could be entirely automated)

[Clatter]

Even that's not fool proof. A driver can be released at a safe distance, but spin his wheels and not get away correctly.

[Ferrari2183]

But nobody would want to pit more. You're talking about adding like 10-15 seconds to a pitstop. Every team and driver would just converge on the same pit/tire strategy as a result.

This. Strategy options would decrease and races would become even more of tyre saving exercise. Not a good idea and I'm glad it got rejected.

[King Six]

Any of them are more dangerous the higher the speed.

With that sort of logic you might aswell stop all racing, come on, that can't actually be an argument. 60kph is still dangerous anyway. Unless you'd like to personally demonstrate otherwise.

[Seanspeed]

Probably, but if there were enough of a performance gap between the tyres to make both strategies work then I think there would be more gambling going on. That was the one problem between the tyres last year.

Its not just the performance gap, its balancing performance with longevity and its very hard to get right with different compounds. Thats why teams usually do start to converge on a similar strategy at the front. In your scenario, if there's any imbalance at all, it would be rare to see somebody gamble as the penalty for getting it wrong is much worse than it is right now.

Edited by Seanspeed, 29 February 2012 - 19:50.

[Clatter]

With that sort of logic you might aswell stop all racing, come on, that can't actually be an argument. 60kph is still dangerous anyway. Unless you'd like to personally demonstrate otherwise.

Not at all. We can all accept racing is dangerous, but you can at least try and contain as much of that danger as possible to the race track. There is no need to increase the danger in a crowded pit lane.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that it's the teams that wanted this. They are the ones in the danger zone, not CW sitting up in a cosy office surrounded by monitors. They would not want to slow things down without good reason.

[Clatter]

Its not just the performance gap, its balancing performance with longevity and its very hard to get right with different compounds. Thats why teams usually do start to converge on a similar strategy at the front. In your scenario, if there's any imbalance at all, it would be rare to see somebody gamble as the penalty for getting it wrong is much worse than it is right now.

It's that balancing that is difficult to achieve, and not helped by the must use both compounds rule.

[7MGTEsup]

Tell you what why don't the drivers stop and push their cars down the pit lane? I remember the days when there was no pitlane speed limit and remember very few accidents in those days. The lower you put the risk the more complacent people become and the less attention they pay to what they are doing. If something is dangerous it focuses the mind.

[Garagiste]

Why not just reduce the total number of pitstops by getting rid of the cruddy "both compounds" rule?
Keep the cars on the track where they can have proper accidents.;)

[britishtrident]

To me it is more like a Bernie decision than a Charlie decision.

[Risil]

No, i mean last year's sportscar accident that Benson refers to in his article.

http://www.ten-tenth...ad.php?t=130348
http://www.oneightur...der/#more-19318

Oh! My apologies. I missed that story completely.

[Taxman]

If they're so worried about pit safety, why did they ask Pirelli to make soft tyres, which require the teams to pit stop more than ever before?

[Clatter]

Tell you what why don't the drivers stop and push their cars down the pit lane? I remember the days when there was no pitlane speed limit and remember very few accidents in those days. The lower you put the risk the more complacent people become and the less attention they pay to what they are doing. If something is dangerous it focuses the mind.

Love your attitude, reminds me of what Jackie Stewart had to contend with.

[BullHead]

Love your attitude, reminds me of what Jackie Stewart had to contend with.

[scheivlak]

As Clarkson would say,: “Speed doesn't kill. Suddenly becoming stationary – thats what gets you!”

Well, that's another reason to loath that jerk.

[Les]

Reading this: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/17209342 I see that 'most' teams agreed to it. Perhaps those objecting had a significant factor in the proposal not going through.

This paragraph 'No guests or media are allowed in the pit lane, apart from television pit-lane reporters and photographers under strict restrictions, and pit crews are only allowed out of the garages when they are getting ready for a stop.' makes me nostalgic for the 80's/early 90's where dozens of photographers/TV crews would crowd cars at pitstops, leaving just enough room to avoid getting run over as Senna/Mansell/whoever blasted out of their box on full throttle.

This being just one example:

Shows how far things have came but those old pitstop are really exciting to look at.

[anbeck]

I don't think it's a particularly pressing concern. After all, we haven't had anything like this.

Wow! I had never seen that one before!

What is more shocking here beyond the fact that Andretti could have razed that race tower had he gone over the wall, is the fact how natural and unavoidable that accident is characterized as by the commentators. And also to the drivers it seemed natural to go at full speed, as if it was their birthright

So at least our perception of such incidents has changed over the years as not something natural and unavoidable, but as something that should be addressed.
So the decision not to lower the pit lane speed is at least open for critique, reflection and discussion.

[Afterburner]

The cynic in me feels that the teams who proposed this can't get their electric pit lane motors to work reliably at 100 kph.

[PassWind]

Lowering pit lane speed limits to 60kph will not make it that much safer, it will have an effect for sure but not so much as to make pit road safe.

If you want a safer pit lane you first need to identify the hazards. Speed itself isn't a hazard it is merely a condition something is at. F1 racing mainly uses lower order controls to maintain safety, they being engineering, administration (rules, regs) and PPE. Lower pit lane speeds may slightly lower consequences but it does nothing for exposure. The risk will still be very high.

Rarely are the higher order controls used, elimination, substitution/isolation. Examples of these however are the advent of barriers to isolate the racing from the public, banning of materials, limitations on the tech regs to eliminate other hazards.

If they want a safe pit lane remove that hazard, no pit stops, if they want pit stops change the rules where pit crews are not near any car on pit entry, you could go further and isolate each team from each other. The later is not practicable, so removing pit stops would eliminate the hazard. Lowering speeds will make no real change to a worst case outcome.

The main reason there are very few incidents now in pit lane is the robust administrative controls, training, rules, etc. Racing however is a window where these controls can fail because of pressure and reduced timelines for thinking something through. Reducing speed may allow more time to think, but the nature of racing will eat up any additional time by allowing the teams to add more complex decision cycles to get a racing advantage and probably negate the control.

[pingu666]

surely they should copy nascar, and have a different speed limit for different tracks? so on the safer pits you go 100kph, more dangerous ones, 50?

nascar pitstops are also pretty amazing, specialy when you look at the details. those pitcrews are proffessional athletes

[7MGTEsup]

Love your attitude, reminds me of what Jackie Stewart had to contend with.

And the softly softly health and safety approach has gotten the world into the state its in. People are afraid of their own shadow now. What happened to survival of the fittest?

[Slartibartfast]

Lowering pit lane speed limits to 60kph will not make it that much safer, it will have an effect for sure but not so much as to make pit road safe.

If you want a safer pit lane you first need to identify the hazards. Speed itself isn't a hazard it is merely a condition something is at. F1 racing mainly uses lower order controls to maintain safety, they being engineering, administration (rules, regs) and PPE. Lower pit lane speeds may slightly lower consequences but it does nothing for exposure. The risk will still be very high.

Rarely are the higher order controls used, elimination, substitution/isolation. Examples of these however are the advent of barriers to isolate the racing from the public, banning of materials, limitations on the tech regs to eliminate other hazards.

If they want a safe pit lane remove that hazard, no pit stops, if they want pit stops change the rules where pit crews are not near any car on pit entry, you could go further and isolate each team from each other. The later is not practicable, so removing pit stops would eliminate the hazard. Lowering speeds will make no real change to a worst case outcome.

The main reason there are very few incidents now in pit lane is the robust administrative controls, training, rules, etc. Racing however is a window where these controls can fail because of pressure and reduced timelines for thinking something through. Reducing speed may allow more time to think, but the nature of racing will eat up any additional time by allowing the teams to add more complex decision cycles to get a racing advantage and probably negate the control.

I think the FIA and the teams have already been through their risk assessment and mitigation routines. There is, after all, already a speed limit in the pit-lane in addition to the regulations regarding what work may be done and when, the restriction on personnel allowed in the area, the PPE, etc. In cost-benefit terms, reducing the speed limit seems to be a cheap and easily implemented action. Without doing our own analysis we don't know what other options are practical and effective. It would be interesting to know whether Whiting has any other plans to reduce the risks in the pit lane. If he hasn't then he is effectively saying that he (and/or the FIA) considers the current level of risk to be acceptable. If he has, then maybe the teams' proposal of reducing the speed limit was their counter to FIA plans that involved extra costs to the teams?

And the softly softly health and safety approach has gotten the world into the state its in. People are afraid of their own shadow now. What happened to survival of the fittest?

Logically, it led to the current situation that you appear to be unhappy with.

[7MGTEsup]

Logically, it led to the current situation that you appear to be unhappy with.

How so? Humans have long removed survival of the fittest from the equation.

[jee]

Cars running with KERS in the pitlane will make them inaudible so I expect some problems with people running across the pitlane.

[King Six]

Cars running with KERS in the pitlane will make them inaudible so I expect some problems with people running across the pitlane.

They already have sirens, and if someone is running across a pitlane not using their eyes, they deserve to get run over. Same applies to regular roads.