120 replies to this topic

[Rediscoveryx]

TomNokoe, on 20 Jun 2022 - 13:37, said:

100% should be closed, it's grossly unfair and goes beyond these blanket nothing statements "randomness is good", "that's racing".

Obviously the rules can be tweaked for force majeure etc.

I don't think it's right to compare it to wet weather/accidents/mechanicals because you can't regulate for that, whereas this is very, very easy for the sport to change.

 

I don't really agree with this sentiment. First off it's not really random - teams have strategic options to, at the very least, partly mitigate the risk of a VSC situation having a negative impact on their race. These scenarios are taken into consideration and if the VSC rules are changed so will the race strategies. 

 

Then there's the quantitative aspect. There are already 20+ races per season, so there is both...

 

A) ...good chances that any "randomness" will even itself out at the end of the year. If you are so close to your competitor after 22 races that a position won or lost due to VSC determines your final position in the championship then you have probably not had a decidedly better season than your competitor.

 

B) ...soooo many races for us to consume. Some added spice in a few of them is not a bad thing. It's a good thing.

 

If Verstappen/Red Bull is this years best driver/team combo (which seems quite likely) then we don't need to see him run away with 16 out of 22 of them. He'll likely win the title even if he finishes second in a race due to an unfavorable VSC deployment.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this issue had been way more important if F1 was an olympic-type sport, where one race determines everything. But now it's a series of 22 races and there's no need to fear the odd freak result due to good/bad luck. Not every race needs to be won by the best driver/team combo. Just like every football game doesn't need to be won by the best team. Unpredictability and hope for the underdog is what makes sport great.

 

Having said that, I do have sympathy for the other perspective. But I'd have more sympathy if the season was shorter and the potential ramifications of a freak result was greater.

Edited by Rediscoveryx, 20 June 2022 - 13:55.

[Gareth]

TomNokoe, on 20 Jun 2022 - 13:37, said:

100% should be closed, it's grossly unfair and goes beyond these blanket nothing statements "randomness is good", "that's racing".

Obviously the rules can be tweaked for force majeure etc.

I don't think it's right to compare it to wet weather/accidents/mechanicals because you can't regulate for that, whereas this is very, very easy for the sport to change.

I don't see why you close it - it may be the right lap to pit on for someone. Closing it just swaps one form of unfairness for another.

 

Changing the pit lane speed limit, on the other hand, eliminates it.

[Ruusperi]

Nah, it's part of the excitement. VSC doesn't bunch up the field, so if they closed the pit too, there would be nothing exciting about the VSC period. Ok, you can argue that creating excitement isn't its purpose, sure, but with today's reliability and lack of gravel traps every bit of randomness is welcome (unless it's purely artificial like reverse grids or using SC when VSC is enough).

[Casey]

If you want to do something about it put an orange light on the pit entrance in case of a VSC , orange means 5 seconds penalty to the pitstop .

Or rather , leave it like it is , some luck out , some don't .

[Spillage]

I do sort of get this. It's not like closing the pitlane under a full SC, which would massively benefit those who pitted just before the SC. Waiting until the end of the VSC period to pit wouldn't actually make a difference to the overall picture - it just removes the huge lucky advantage you get from pitting under the VSC at the moment.

[milestone 11]

ANF, on 20 Jun 2022 - 12:23, said:

Yeah, the same goes for the pit entry. Cars that enter the pit lane can go flat out between the safety car line and the beginning of the pit lane/speed limit.

Yeah well just look at the stunt Audi pulled with di Grassi in London EPrix

[w1Y]

RekF1, on 20 Jun 2022 - 13:50, said:

That solves the problem completely. Minimum stationary time to compensate for time gained. It's better than waiting for everyone to pass the pits because the vsc Delta hurts drivers on a straight more than it does in a twisty section and that problem will always be there.

Only issue is with a double stack. Not the time point but the fact they would be queuing

Edited by w1Y, 20 June 2022 - 16:38.

[Paa]

TomNokoe, on 20 Jun 2022 - 13:37, said:

100% should be closed, it's grossly unfair and goes beyond these blanket nothing statements "randomness is good", "that's racing".

Obviously the rules can be tweaked for force majeure etc.

I don't think it's right to compare it to wet weather/accidents/mechanicals because you can't regulate for that, whereas this is very, very easy for the sport to change.

 

No need for closing it. Mechanics should just wait for X seconds before start working on the car. 

X would be determined for each track to nullify the VSC effect.

[w1Y]

Paa, on 20 Jun 2022 - 16:36, said:

No need for closing it. Mechanics should just wait for X seconds before start working on the car.
X would be determined for each track to nullify the VSC effect.

How would that work with a double stack? I think your better reducing the pit lane limiter speed

[Primo]

w1Y, on 20 Jun 2022 - 16:39, said:

How would that work with a double stack? I think your better reducing the pit lane limiter speed

Why double stack if positive effect of a VSC stop is nullified?

[w1Y]

Primo, on 20 Jun 2022 - 16:41, said:

Why double stack if positive effect of a VSC stop is nullified?

good point

[TomNokoe]

Paa, on 20 Jun 2022 - 16:36, said:

No need for closing it. Mechanics should just wait for X seconds before start working on the car.
X would be determined for each track to nullify the VSC effect.

Or just scrap the algorithm stuff and close the pits. It's literally 1-2 laps at most. I think it's fine.

Gareth, on 20 Jun 2022 - 13:53, said:

Closing it just swaps one form of unfairness for another.

I understand what you mean, but currently the rules favour those who haven't pitted, whereas I think it should be the opposite way around. Lesser of two evils. Like in Indycar. Staying out / not pitting shouldn't be rewarded with a cheap stop.

Edited by TomNokoe, 20 June 2022 - 18:09.

[MasterOfCoin]

I can imagine Alonso saying....All the time you have to leave the pit's open......

[r4mses]

Stop solving non existent problems.

[r4mses]

TomNokoe, on 20 Jun 2022 - 13:37, said:

100% should be closed, it's grossly unfair and goes beyond these blanket nothing statements "randomness is good", "that's racing".

Obviously the rules can be tweaked for force majeure etc.

I don't think it's right to compare it to wet weather/accidents/mechanicals because you can't regulate for that, whereas this is very, very easy for the sport to change.

 

So it's not grossly unfair to force a driver to stay on his old overdue tires and lose out on SC restart just because he was unlucky not to pit before the SC came out? uh?  

[FortiFord]

r4mses, on 20 Jun 2022 - 18:31, said:

So it's not grossly unfair to force a driver to stay on his old overdue tires and lose out on SC restart just because he was unlucky not to pit before the SC came out? uh?

We are talking about VSC not SC.

[FortiFord]

Gareth, on 20 Jun 2022 - 13:53, said:

I don't see why you close it - it may be the right lap to pit on for someone. Closing it just swaps one form of unfairness for another.

Changing the pit lane speed limit, on the other hand, eliminates it.

If it’s the right lap to pit for someone, they can surely wait 1 or 2 laps more until the VSC has ended?

[r4mses]

FortiFord, on 20 Jun 2022 - 19:36, said:

We are talking about VSC not SC.

 

So what's the fundamental difference? 

 

There's none. You force drivers to continue on done tires because their pit stop timing is unluckly. Gets even more needlessly random when you consider the timings of (V)SC deployment/green flag. 

 

There is no perfect 'fair' solution to this. And there's even less of a need to fiddle around. As I said before: stop fixing problems which do not exist in the first place.

[Gareth]

FortiFord, on 20 Jun 2022 - 19:41, said:

If it’s the right lap to pit for someone, they can surely wait 1 or 2 laps more until the VSC has ended?

In most cases, yes - ie if it’s the right lap because of tyre age.

I could see there being circumstances where not being able to pit could lead to a car loping at slower than VSC delta times (a missing front wing? Rain?) that would cost them. I appreciate these situations are rare, but I don’t see why closing is somehow simpler than having 3 settings for the pit lane limiter. anything, the opposite - as the limiter is automated, whereas closing the pit lane can’t be (eg if the accident is on the pit straight the cars may be directed to use the pit lane). So it’s the simplest solution and the most fair I think.

[ARTGP]

Most races end with 1 or 2 cars winning the race. A VSC might be the only thing that changes that predictability. I’m surprised people are complaining about something that at the very least makes races less predictable….

So we want more predictability? Got it…

Edited by ARTGP, 20 June 2022 - 21:12.

[Paa]

ARTGP, on 20 Jun 2022 - 21:11, said:

Most races end with 1 or 2 cars winning the race. A VSC might be the only thing that changes that predictability. I’m surprised people are complaining about something that at the very least makes races less predictable….

So we want more predictability? Got it…

 

It depends how you view F1? As a sport or a circus?

 

I vote for sport and so I would like to make it as fair as possible without random number generator.

 

I can understand people who look it as a circus and want more twists, but then it is a slippery slope.

[Sash1]

Luck is the fairest randomness there is. Is it fair to be the first to hit the debris of another one's crash? Is it fair to be the first to blow your tire in Baku 2021? Or should they all have to run until they blow a tire? Is it fair when you are just past the pit entry when a downpour starts? Is it fair when you have the worst driver of the field punting you off? Is it fair to sit in a Trulli train? Is it fair when race control f's the rules up and you lose or win a championship? Is it fair when Sato blows his engine just in front of you on the streets of Monaco? Is it fair when you are behind the famous Spa crash and wreck your car because of poor visability? Is it fair that you win points for single lap behind the SC?

[acf69]

For all those wanting a time penalty for pitting under VSC, what if I come in under VSC, but it becomes green during my pitstop or after I leave my box?

[FirstnameLastname]

As long as VSC favours my favourite drivers, I’m all for it.

[r4mses]

Paa, on 20 Jun 2022 - 21:15, said:

It depends how you view F1? As a sport or a circus?

 

I vote for sport and so I would like to make it as fair as possible without random number generator.

 

I can understand people who look it as a circus and want more twists, but then it is a slippery slope.

 

Closing the pitlane is just as much of a "random number generator" as leaving it open - for christ's sake

 

There just two things you get from closing the pitlane under VSC: a) random viewers being confused why the pitlane is apparently open sometimes and more important b) insane amount of QQ about VSC (closed pitlane) vs SC (open pitlane) and the tipping point when VSC turns into SC. It'll just be one huge mess and source for complaints.

[boomn]

The 2nd VSC yesterday is an interesting data point to consider because it shows how messy this all can be.  The 2nd was actually less than a lap in length.  It started when Alonso was in T2 and ended before he made it back around to the pitlane entrance.  (His engineer said to pit unless the VSC ended, then it ended right as he approached the pit entrance).  Russell was right behind him on lap 19 and was already planning to pit and was pushing on his in-lap.  Then the VSC was called before he got to his box and he got an expected advantage.  Ocon pitted shortly behind him but I didn't watch that yet to see if it was planned or opportune. 

 

In summary, some random cars may sometimes not get a chance for a VSC pit stop because their greatly reduced speed on track can make a VSC less than a single lap

[TomNokoe]

r4mses, on 20 Jun 2022 - 18:31, said:

So it's not grossly unfair to force a driver to stay on his old overdue tires and lose out on SC restart just because he was unlucky not to pit before the SC came out? uh?

Yes, but this is my point. In the opposite scenario, when you stay out you are accepting the "gamble" that if there's a VSC/SC you are screwed. A very easy to understand risk/reward scenario. Same as Indycar. Everyone is on the same page and knows they can cover this by pitting.

Whereas what we have now is totally backwards. If you make a pitstop at racing speed (a totally normal and expected thing to do) you are now part of the "gamble", the gamble that there's not a VSC/SC in the next 10-20 laps because the drivers who are actually gambling and extending will get a cheap stop and you will lose. I simply do not think the drivers that choose to pit should be the ones at risk, especially when you consider that you are bound by the regulations to make at least one pit stop, and the tyres in modern F1 often necessitate pitstops.

You may argue the teams understand this and factor it into their calculations, but I think it's far too lopsided. From what I can see the teams run as optimal a race they can assuming it's all under green.

If someone has to lose when VSC/SC comes out, it should be the drivers who haven't pitted. I think this is the least unfair way to do it.

Edited by TomNokoe, 20 June 2022 - 22:33.

[tyker]

I think the pits should remain open because as been said there might be a damaged car, but as a VSC is supposed to neutralise the race I would say a 10 second stop/go penalty, going on from that I would also do the same for stopping under a SC.

[Paa]

r4mses, on 20 Jun 2022 - 22:00, said:

Closing the pitlane is just as much of a "random number generator" as leaving it open - for christ's sake

 

There just two things you get from closing the pitlane under VSC: a) random viewers being confused why the pitlane is apparently open sometimes and more important b) insane amount of QQ about VSC (closed pitlane) vs SC (open pitlane) and the tipping point when VSC turns into SC. It'll just be one huge mess and source for complaints.

 

Yeah, but I never wanted to close the pitlane.

I'm in for a time penalty during VSC pit stop to make pit time loss the same regardless if it is under VSC or not.

 

As somebody pointed out it is also not fair, if track becomes green during the pit stop, after serving the penalty, so I guess this solution is not perfect either. 

However, probably still closer to optimum than what we have currently.

[tyker]

TomNokoe, on 20 Jun 2022 - 22:30, said:

Yes, but this is my point. In the opposite scenario, when you stay out you are accepting the "gamble" that if there's a VSC/SC you are screwed. A very easy to understand risk/reward scenario. Same as Indycar. Everyone is on the same page and knows they can cover this by pitting.

Whereas what we have now is totally backwards. If you make a pitstop at racing speed (a totally normal and expected thing to do) you are now part of the "gamble", the gamble that there's not a VSC/SC in the next 10-20 laps because the drivers who are actually gambling and extending will get a cheap stop and you will lose. I simply do not think the drivers that choose to pit should be the ones at risk, especially when you consider that you are bound by the regulations to make at least one pit stop, and the tyres in modern F1 often necessitate pitstops.

You may argue the teams understand this and factor it into their calculations, but I think it's far too lopsided. From what I can see the teams run as optimal a race they can assuming it's all under green.

I think the Indycar system is terrible, cars, normally uncompetitive cars, pitting early hoping to get lucky with a SC, so you then say it's the leaders fault if they don't also pit but stay out and get caught out with a SC.

 

In F1 cars often pit early looking for the benefit of the undercut on fresher tyres, but you're saying they should also benefit from a SC coming out before others have a chance to pit.

[MikeTekRacing]

TomNokoe, on 20 Jun 2022 - 22:30, said:

If someone has to lose when VSC/SC comes out, it should be the drivers who haven't pitted. I think this is the least unfair way to do it.

Why is it less unfair?
If driver A is destroying his tyres, pits early - why should he benefit from it?

[Michael Ferner]

Sterzo, on 20 Jun 2022 - 12:21, said:

Easily solved. Do away with tyre changes. Don't need them anyway.

 

Ceterum censeo interruptiones essent delendam.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 21 June 2022 - 07:35.

[FortiFord]

Gareth, on 20 Jun 2022 - 21:02, said:

In most cases, yes - ie if it’s the right lap because of tyre age.

I could see there being circumstances where not being able to pit could lead to a car loping at slower than VSC delta times (a missing front wing? Rain?) that would cost them. I appreciate these situations are rare, but I don’t see why closing is somehow simpler than having 3 settings for the pit lane limiter. anything, the opposite - as the limiter is automated, whereas closing the pit lane can’t be (eg if the accident is on the pit straight the cars may be directed to use the pit lane). So it’s the simplest solution and the most fair I think.

 

I'm not against having a different pit lane speed limit for VSC, but it seems more difficult to implement. Ideally you would want to set a pit lane speed limit that results in the time lost from pitting under the VSC equalling the time lost when pitting under race speeds (this is all relative to competitors). In order to achieve that i imagine that you would need a different pit lane speed limit for each circuit. Maybe i'm missing something though. 

[FortiFord]

r4mses, on 20 Jun 2022 - 19:47, said:

So what's the fundamental difference? 

 

There's none. You force drivers to continue on done tires because their pit stop timing is unluckly. Gets even more needlessly random when you consider the timings of (V)SC deployment/green flag. 

 

There is no perfect 'fair' solution to this. And there's even less of a need to fiddle around. As I said before: stop fixing problems which do not exist in the first place.

 

The fundamental difference is that the VSC does it's best to maintain existing gaps while the gaps are eliminated during a full SC. I would've thought that was quite obvious. 

 

Currently an open pit lane for SC is not fair to all competitors. A closed pit lane would also not be fair to all competitors. Therefore we accept that not much can be done to increase the fairness. 

 

For a VSC, a closed pit lane would increase the fairness by preventing cars from taking a cheap pit stop. As discussed by others, the only cars disadvantaged would be fringe cases which are quite rare. 

[Bleu]

To think it, the fairest system between those who had pitted and those who had not is what it was in 2006 and before. But that meant the racing wasn't neutralized immediately which played a big part in accident which Fernando Alonso had in Brazil 2003.

[Mark521]

I guess we first need to answer the question: "Is a cheap pit stop under VSC and/or SC is a Feature or a Bug?".

From the discussion above it seems there is enough posters who believe this is a feature thus no "bug fix" is required.

Personally I think the advantage of a VSC/SC pit stop is too high, thus I would agree to a 5 second time penalty to be served immediately should a car enter pit lane while under VSC/SC conditions (aka not Green).

While this would not remove all of the advantage it would blunt it and then give the teams more time to get the tires ready safely, particularly if the teams double stack.

Frankly though I don't expect to see any changes for this particular issue nor would I be unhappy with keeping this "status quo" but it's an interesting forum topic so I though I'd contribute    

[F1Lurker]

I agree with others that the fairest situation is to either do a slower pit entry speed or a time penalty for pitting under a VSC. I think that in sport, while impossible to fully eradicate, the less results are based on luck the better.

As for the argument that someone might have just entered the pit when the VSC has ended, is not compelling to me. The VSC can be mandated to last at least 30 seconds, and after that, people should know that entering the pits during a VSC carries some time penalty risk. People choose to enter the pits under a VSC for a time advantage. There is no need to do so without refuelling.

[FirstnameLastname]

When was F1 ‘fair’?!

It’s just a quirk/random thing… same as rain or a puncture or a crash or whatever. Sometimes you win/benefit from it… sometimes you lose because of it.

If you try and remove all randomness then you’ll never succeed.

[ARTGP]

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. 

[Risil]

ARTGP, on 20 Jun 2022 - 21:11, said:

Most races end with 1 or 2 cars winning the race.

 

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

[MikeTekRacing]

F1Lurker, on 21 Jun 2022 - 14:30, said:

People choose to enter the pits under a VSC for a time advantage. There is no need to do so without refuelling.

or because you effectively ran out of tyres. Or maybe the track is changing (wet to dry or vice versa) and staying out means losing 5-6 sec a lap.

Or maybe they have damage. 

 

Why fix something that's not broken? VSC is there for the taking. Team's strategies try to take into account the possibility of VSC/SC/Red flag/Rain.

Look at Alonso. He gambled for a 3rd VSC (which did not come) and had to nurse his tyres

People on different strategies means more track action.

[FortiFord]

MikeTekRacing, on 21 Jun 2022 - 16:58, said:

or because you effectively ran out of tyres. Or maybe the track is changing (wet to dry or vice versa) and staying out means losing 5-6 sec a lap.

Or maybe they have damage. 

 

Why fix something that's not broken? VSC is there for the taking. Team's strategies try to take into account the possibility of VSC/SC/Red flag/Rain.

Look at Alonso. He gambled for a 3rd VSC (which did not come) and had to nurse his tyres

People on different strategies means more track action.

 

Regarding your first line - i don't see how staying out means losing 5-6 seconds a lap on old tyres considering everyone would be driving to the same VSC delta. Once the VSC ends the cars would be free to pit and therefore change those old tyres if needed. 

 

I don't see why you would not take the opportunity to improve something when the opportunity exists. 

 

The example with Alonso is not a good one. He did not gamble on a 3rd VSC. He chose not to pit under the first VSC since he was on a one stopper. He never had the opportunity to pit under the second VSC. 

[Sterzo]

Michael Ferner, on 21 Jun 2022 - 06:55, said:

Ceterum censeo interruptiones essent delendam.

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

[MikeTekRacing]

FortiFord, on 21 Jun 2022 - 17:28, said:

Regarding your first line - i don't see how staying out means losing 5-6 seconds a lap on old tyres considering everyone would be driving to the same VSC delta. Once the VSC ends the cars would be free to pit and therefore change those old tyres if needed. 

 

I don't see why you would not take the opportunity to improve something when the opportunity exists. 

 

The example with Alonso is not a good one. He did not gamble on a 3rd VSC. He chose not to pit under the first VSC since he was on a one stopper. He never had the opportunity to pit under the second VSC. 

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.

[F1Lurker]

MikeTekRacing, on 21 Jun 2022 - 16:58, said:

or because you effectively ran out of tyres. Or maybe the track is changing (wet to dry or vice versa) and staying out means losing 5-6 sec a lap.

Or maybe they have damage. 

 

Why fix something that's not broken? VSC is there for the taking. Team's strategies try to take into account the possibility of VSC/SC/Red flag/Rain.

Look at Alonso. He gambled for a 3rd VSC (which did not come) and had to nurse his tyres

People on different strategies means more track action.

Under VSC you are driving pretty slowly to a delta, worn tyres should not be an issue. If it starts raining and you come in, you are still better off. It's not slower than a normal pitstop, just not 10 seconds faster. 

[boomn]

Here is another discussion point for closing pits: how would the rules and/or everyone's emotions handle a car that is already driving down the pit entry and is past the bollard but then the pitlane closes for a VSC just before they get to the pit lane/speed limit line?  This happened to Alex Palou during this year's Indy 500 and by Indycar rules he had to drive through without service to avoid a further penalty.  Or what if the driver wasn't in pit entry yet but had already gone off the racing line?  I wouldn't want them trying to make a sudden panicked move to avoid the pit lane and 

[boomn]

MikeTekRacing, on 21 Jun 2022 - 17:41, said:

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.

Yes, he did have that opportunity with the first VSC.  He and Hamilton did not with the second VSC because it lasted just less than a lap and started after they went past the pits.  Not everyone had the same opportunities that time around

[MatsNorway]

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

Edited by MatsNorway, 21 June 2022 - 18:04.

[FirstnameLastname]

ARTGP, on 21 Jun 2022 - 16:49, said:

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.

Yes - cars should be made to alternate which side of the pit straight they drive down during the weekend to make it fairer for those starting on the dirty side.

[FirstnameLastname]

boomn, on 21 Jun 2022 - 17:54, said:

Here is another discussion point for closing pits: how would the rules and/or everyone's emotions handle a car that is already driving down the pit entry and is past the bollard but then the pitlane closes for a VSC just before they get to the pit lane/speed limit line? This happened to Alex Palou during this year's Indy 500 and by Indycar rules he had to drive through without service to avoid a further penalty. Or what if the driver wasn't in pit entry yet but had already gone off the racing line? I wouldn't want them trying to make a sudden panicked move to avoid the pit lane and

Disqualify them and 3 points on their license.