120 replies to this topic

[FortiFord]

They would have to do part of a lap after the VSC ends to go to the pits. it can be 3 turns, it can be a whole full lap 

 

Alonso did have that option - "he was on a 1 stopper" is not set in stone. A VSC happens, you can change your strategy or not. They all had the same opportunities.

 

They wouldn't necessarily do part of a lap after the VSC ends. As you said, it could be 3 turns, it could be a full lap or they could be at the pit entry when the VSC ends. Though if they're losing 5-6 seconds a lap, i would wonder why they hadn't pitted on any of the previous laps prior to the VSC. 

 

How is this different to someone who currently doesn't get an opportunity to take a cheap pitstop under the VSC because the VSC period started after they passed the pit entry and ended before they could complete another lap?

 

To your last point, if they all had the same opportunities then Alonso would've been able to pit under the second VSC. 

[boomn]

VSC seems to be used too easily. Some car stops of the pit exit in a very low risk zone..they could easily use local yellow until driver is safe and continue the race with the car still there

I was just thinking about this yesterday. Despite all the talk here about VSC being an alternative to a full safety car that is meant to maintain the gaps for fairness, isn't VSC really here as a safety upgrade over local double-yellows because drivers weren't doing a good enough job slowing down?  VSC actually forces the drivers to slow down, and enforcing it over the full track was an easy extension of that idea, right?

 

Also, the FIA is no longer ok with leaving abandoned cars outside of the barriers

Edited by boomn, 21 June 2022 - 18:11.

[FirstnameLastname]

The randomness of engine failures is something that needs looked at too. Not fair on one driver if his engine fails while everyone else’s doesn’t.

If it happens, race should be frozen with the drivers stopping in position on the track until the mechanics can change the engine with a new one.

Obviously that’s not entirely fair as it would be a new engine, so I propose the driver circulates the track (dodging all the waiting cars) until the engine is at the same mileage as the one that’s blown - and then put the original tyres on and set fuel to the original level… and then unfreeze the race.

Yes it might take half a day - but it’s in the interest of fairness.

[MatsNorway]

I was just thinking about this yesterday. Despite all the talk here about VSC being an alternative to a full safety car that is meant to maintain the gaps for fairness, isn't VSC really here as a safety upgrade over local double-yellows because drivers weren't doing a good enough job slowing down?  VSC actually forces the drivers to slow down, and enforcing it over the full track was an easy extension of that idea, right?

 

Also, the FIA is no longer ok with leaving abandoned cars outside of the barriers

What does that have to with VSC? FIA could easily use same system for local yellows. FIA is nannies a car out by the side in perhaps the lowest risk area on track is acceptable.

[Michael Ferner]

A statement worthy of Julius Caesar. (Perhaps the Kenneth Williams version).

 

It's actually quoting Cato, a Roman Senator, and I was having a heck of a time modifying it for my needs... haven't even as much as thought about Latin grammar for very near forty years... hope it's okay now, but...

 

Where's ensign when you need him???    

 

 

Actually, it's a brillant idea for a new signature!!!

Edited by Michael Ferner, 21 June 2022 - 18:37.

[boomn]

What does that have to with VSC? FIA could easily use same system for local yellows. FIA is nannies a car out by the side in perhaps the lowest risk area on track is acceptable.

local double-yellow flags make more sense than a full safety car for something like the 2 incidents in Canada that can be resolved in 2 minutes and the safety car might not even complete a lap before the track is clear again.  So why don't they use local double-yellows?  Because the amount to reduce speed is too subjective and racing drivers are looking for every way to not lose an advantage.  

 

the VSC was a direct result of the FIA looking for a better solution than local-double yellows for slowing down cars after Jules Bianchi crashed under double-yellows.  Here is an article from 2014 where Charlie Whiting talks about some of their initial ideas, from Le Mans-style slow zones to the idea evolved into the full-course VSC.  And this quote from another article from that time: "Formula 1 race director, Charlie Whiting thinks that F1 needs to find a similar system where the speed of cars when double yellows are out is controlled by the FIA, rather than relying on drivers to do what they think is best"

Edited by boomn, 21 June 2022 - 18:40.

[moreland]

Really can't get on board with the argument that 'it spices things up a bit, the luck balances out over the course of the season'. Opportunities for good results do not balance out over the course of the season. When you see someone who isn't normally a podium contender, e.g. Vettel, running in 3rd, it's quite interesting because you know they might not get another chance in a while, because results don't balance out during the year. When Leclerc overtakes Verstappen for the lead, you think 'that could be important in the championship battle', you don't think 'meh, Verstappen will overtake him in another race because things balance out'.

 

So, let's carry on with one of those examples. Let's say Vettel's in 3rd, with Sainz close behind, getting close to overtaking but not quite being able to manage it, with 1 pit stop to go. Vettel makes his stop quite early to avoid being undercut, albeit knowing Sainz will have a tyre advantage after he makes his final stop. Instead, the VSC comes out, Sainz makes a cheap pit stop and jumps Vettel. Was that really 'spicing things up'? That kind of outcome feels completely rubbish to me. The argument that teams should factor in a possible VSC into their strategy just doesn't add up. If Vettel stays out hoping for a VSC, Sainz will just undercut him and 95% of the time Vettel won't get the VSC he needs to jump Sainz back. There is no sensible strategic move that Aston Martin could make to protect themselves from that outcome.

 

And it's really not like getting lucky with rain. If a driver gets lucky with the rain by e.g. pitting early for dry tyres on a drying track, they've exposed themselves to the possibility of it going horribly wrong - they've at least risked something to have access to that luck. When drivers get lucky with VSC, there's no risk/reward taking place, it's just a completly undramatic, unmerited coin toss in their favour. (Although to put it into perspective, it's only about 5% as irritating as the closed pits rule in Indycar but I don't want to get started on that).

[PlatenGlass]

I think there's a difference between luck caused by outside factors (e.g. rain) and luck caused by the way the way the sport is run. The latter could, and should, be reduced as much as possible. You shouldn't be deliberately introducing things that screw around with the race result.

The point (or maybe one point at least) of the VSC instead of the full safety car is to reduce the effects on the outcome of the race and make it fairer and less about luck. So if you can go even further, why not?

[PayasYouRace]

I think having two sides of the grid to start on is unfair too. One side "clean" and one side "dirty". In fact, everyone should be able to start from the same grid slot so that it's more fair.    /s

 

You see...becoming pedantic about these things is dangerous. 

You could have a classic Le Mans type start (minus the running to the cars), so all the cars are on the same side.

[MikeTekRacing]

I think there's a difference between luck caused by outside factors (e.g. rain) and luck caused by the way the way the sport is run. The latter could, and should, be reduced as much as possible. You shouldn't be deliberately introducing things that screw around with the race result.

The point (or maybe one point at least) of the VSC instead of the full safety car is to reduce the effects on the outcome of the race and make it fairer and less about luck. So if you can go even further, why not?

a VSC is as much of an outside factor as rain is.

[MikeTekRacing]

 

 

So, let's carry on with one of those examples. Let's say Vettel's in 3rd, with Sainz close behind, getting close to overtaking but not quite being able to manage it, with 1 pit stop to go. Vettel makes his stop quite early to avoid being undercut, albeit knowing Sainz will have a tyre advantage after he makes his final stop. Instead, the VSC comes out, Sainz makes a cheap pit stop and jumps Vettel. Was that really 'spicing things up'? That kind of outcome feels completely rubbish to me. 

maybe Sainz just takes better care of his tyres hence he makes his own luck. 
The same outcome can happen if a red flag appears. Or a full SC. 

[r4mses]

I think there's a difference between luck caused by outside factors (e.g. rain) and luck caused by the way the way the sport is run. The latter could, and should, be reduced as much as possible. You shouldn't be deliberately introducing things that screw around with the race result.

The point (or maybe one point at least) of the VSC instead of the full safety car is to reduce the effects on the outcome of the race and make it fairer and less about luck. So if you can go even further, why not?

 

Why not? Because you don't get even further. Just different. At the same tiem you open a whole new battlefield for needless complaints and arguments. 

[PlatenGlass]

a VSC is as much of an outside factor as rain is.

 

It's not because it was invented by the people who run the sport, and as such it should be used in the way that least interferes with the race.

 

Why not? Because you don't get even further. Just different. At the same tiem you open a whole new battlefield for needless complaints and arguments. 

 

Reducing the pitlane speed limit under VSC is a way that's been suggested that shouldn't add any new reasons for complaint.

[boomn]

It's not because it was invented by the people who run the sport, and as such it should be used in the way that least interferes with the race.

 

 

Reducing the pitlane speed limit under VSC is a way that's been suggested that shouldn't add any new reasons for complaint.

and the VSC was designed with the intention of minimizing interference with the race.  Not many ideas are perfect from the start, so it shouldn't be too surprising that after 7 and a bit seasons with the VSC people are wondering about refining the idea

[moreland]

maybe Sainz just takes better care of his tyres hence he makes his own luck. 
The same outcome can happen if a red flag appears. Or a full SC. 

 

Don't get what point you're making with the first sentence, it doesn't seem to counter my point about Sainz's undeserved overtaking of Vettel. As for your second sentence, yes, red flags and full SCs can distort the race outcomes and it's reasonable to ask if the rules could be made more fair in those situations. In the case of full SCs, it is unfair that drivers lose the gaps they've built up, but we do get a closer race in return. With the VSC pit stops scenario, drivers can unfairly lose an advantage and in return we get...nothing basically.

[MikeTekRacing]

if you're happy you're getting a race close (and fake) race in return for a SC, why are you not happy for getting a car out of position and maybe some (fake again) racing?

 

I dislike both of SC and VSC, but such is life. Sometimes timing matters more than pace, and it's part of the game for me (as it is for everything around in our lifes)

[r4mses]

 

Reducing the pitlane speed limit under VSC is a way that's been suggested that shouldn't add any new reasons for complaint.

 

Everything, that makes the pit lane situation under SC different from VSC will open even more endless discussions (and inevitable complaints afterwards) whether to deploy virtual or actual SC. Endless, pointless discussions about the SC-VSC tipping point -- even more then we already have today. "Mimimimi why was this incident on lap 25 SC while this incident two laps later just VSC? Race direction robbed me blablabla". And nothing will be better (i. e. less random) then before. 

 

On top of that you get the chaos right before the VSC is deployed, as others already pointed out. How do you deal with a driver who's already on his way to the pits when VSC comes? Or driving down the pitlane. When VSC goes full SC. All those circumstances. This is bound to end in chaos. 

[boomn]

Everything, that makes the pit lane situation under SC different from VSC will open even more endless discussions (and inevitable complaints afterwards) whether to deploy virtual or actual SC. Endless, pointless discussions about the SC-VSC tipping point -- even more then we already have today. "Mimimimi why was this incident on lap 25 SC while this incident two laps later just VSC? Race direction robbed me blablabla". And nothing will be better (i. e. less random) then before. 

 

On top of that you get the chaos right before the VSC is deployed, as others already pointed out. How do you deal with a driver who's already on his way to the pits when VSC comes? Or driving down the pitlane. When VSC goes full SC. All those circumstances. This is bound to end in chaos. 

I brought up the pit entry issue as a point against closing the pits, but I also think that bringing up potential issues isn't supposed to end the discussion but help in working towards a more refined idea.  The FIA went through that same process in designing the VSC system as an upgrade over double yellows with the intention of minimizing the effect on the race outcome.  Over time we've seen some ways that it misses the mark though, and I can only hope that the FIA has some of these same discussions internally at some point. 

 

And these "endless" what-if discussions are exactly what forums like this are for! 

[milestone 11]

Can't say I've seen many races won by 2 cars!

Not many, but bikes at Donington provided Johnny Garness and Carter Brown with a perfect example .https://www.youtube....h?v=MpCvsKwE3LQ

Edited by milestone 11, 22 June 2022 - 11:40.

[BleuMurmure]

The FIA could solve this by setting a minimum SC/VSC pit stop time for each race. The easiest implementation is for the stationary part of the pitstop.

[FortiFord]

Everything, that makes the pit lane situation under SC different from VSC will open even more endless discussions (and inevitable complaints afterwards) whether to deploy virtual or actual SC. Endless, pointless discussions about the SC-VSC tipping point -- even more then we already have today. "Mimimimi why was this incident on lap 25 SC while this incident two laps later just VSC? Race direction robbed me blablabla". And nothing will be better (i. e. less random) then before. 

 

On top of that you get the chaos right before the VSC is deployed, as others already pointed out. How do you deal with a driver who's already on his way to the pits when VSC comes? Or driving down the pitlane. When VSC goes full SC. All those circumstances. This is bound to end in chaos. 

 

The SC is already inherently unfair. I don't see why the VSC also has to made unfair just to match the unfairness of the SC?

 

Reminder - there already is endless pointless discussion about SC-VSC tipping point. We even had a team boss begging the RD not to move from a VSC to a SC last season. We also have the same pointless debate with regard to SC turning into red flags. This kind of thing will screw the race up regardless of whether there is a lower pitlane speed limiter for VSC or not. Either RC become more decisive or simply implement the same lower pitlane speed limit for full SCs. 

 

As for drivers who are already on their way to the pits - they could reduce the pitlane speed limit as soon as the VSC is deployed.