The simplest solution to impliment quickly is to just deploy a safety car every time.
Jules Bianchi thread for updates and discussion
- Thread starter knip
- Start date
The simplest solution to impliment quickly is to just deploy a safety car every time.
Soldato
From happier times - when I briefly met Jules Bianchi in Barcelona this year. Wishing him a full recovery.
Jules Bianchi by Greg Kingston, on Flickr
Jules Bianchi by Greg Kingston, on Flickr
Soldato
Precisely. She's almost certainly answered a direct question, which has not been quoted, and given a perfectly reasonable answer.
The closed cockpit idea was a result of Massas accident, Henry Surtees death, and a couple of up and overs in F1 where a car came very close to a drivers head (was it Schumacher and Sutil in Abu Dhabi?).
Bianchis injuries are from a rapid deceleration caused by hitting a recovery vehicle that has little to no ability to absorb and dissipate energy. He does not have injuries caused by a direct blow to the head. He would be in the same, or at least very similar position had he had a closed cockpit. The discussions around closed cockpits in relation to this are missguided, and as Abyss points out, the teams are only discussing it in response to questions from the press.
Bianchis injuries are from a rapid deceleration caused by hitting a recovery vehicle that has little to no ability to absorb and dissipate energy. He does not have injuries caused by a direct blow to the head. He would be in the same, or at least very similar position had he had a closed cockpit. The discussions around closed cockpits in relation to this are missguided, and as Abyss points out, the teams are only discussing it in response to questions from the press.
Last edited:
The problem with deploying saftey cars for every recovery is that the safety car situation at the minute is terribly managed. Just look at Singapore where the safety car was out on track for 8laps? half of those were to deal with car position management etc.
You have that twice in a race and your looking at 20-30% of a race being run under safety car conditions which is utterly ridicoulous.
Yes safety of marshalls is important, as is that of drivers, but F1 is a dangerous sport and sometimes freak accidents happen.
You have that twice in a race and your looking at 20-30% of a race being run under safety car conditions which is utterly ridicoulous.
Yes safety of marshalls is important, as is that of drivers, but F1 is a dangerous sport and sometimes freak accidents happen.
Yeap, fully agree, and therein lies the problem.
Then again is it the FIA or the teams that are reluctant to change the SC rules? We all know how stubborn the teams can be.
That was Sutil in Germany. No tractor, but marshals on a blind corner crossing the racing line to move his car.
The FIA have made the SC rules so bad that they now get flack every time they use it, so they seem to have resorted to not using it, and in doing so are endangering the drivers and marshals.
The FIA have made the SC rules so bad that they now get flack every time they use it, so they seem to have resorted to not using it, and in doing so are endangering the drivers and marshals.
Soldato
That was a rant imho. It was in essence factually correct, but became obnoxious as soon as...
... he started berating people who mourned Princess Diana, just because he didn't feel the need for compassion at that time.
Yes apportioning blame is wrong in the most part, but questioning each factor in things like this will always lead to each factor being proved good or bad, and therefore leads to change.
Newspapers will always feed on misery and conflict, because you can't sell newspapers on happiness.
IMO it would be easy to sort out the lapped cars. As soon as the reason for the SC has been cleared (or even before) make the field run through the pit lane. Any lapped cars stay on track and go through and rejoin the field by travelling much faster than them. Safety car in that lap. No problem!
Soldato
Simply get all lapped cars to travel through the pit lane on the second full safety car lap and do the equivalent of a stop'n'go penalty (but not in their box, at end of pit lane with a red exit light*), which will put them to the back of the procession, behind any cars on the leading lap that may choose to pit for tyres on the first full safety car lap.
* If a car on the leading lap has not passed the pit exit during the s'n'g, the pit exit light remains red until the car has passed the pit exit.
* If a car on the leading lap has not passed the pit exit during the s'n'g, the pit exit light remains red until the car has passed the pit exit.
Are we saying it wasn't a SC scenario simply because we have gotten used to SCs being so disruptive that we only expect to see them in extreme circumstances?
In America that would be a full course caution and Pace Car, definitely. Because in America the pace car rules are much simpler.
If the SC rules were designed so that it was easy for them to deploy it for 1 lap and then carry on, then we would see it more often and this would have been a SC situation.
Your right that this was double yellows, and that the rules for double yellows need addressing. But I think there is also a case to look at improving the SC rules so that a SC can be used instead of double yellows in some situations.
In America that would be a full course caution and Pace Car, definitely. Because in America the pace car rules are much simpler.
If the SC rules were designed so that it was easy for them to deploy it for 1 lap and then carry on, then we would see it more often and this would have been a SC situation.
Your right that this was double yellows, and that the rules for double yellows need addressing. But I think there is also a case to look at improving the SC rules so that a SC can be used instead of double yellows in some situations.
It wasn't needed. It would have been cleared quickly, neither the accident or the weather warranted a SC. Even combined it did not warrant one, regardless of SC rules.
If they had actually been doing what double yellows implied, they would have removed the car quickly and it would have been back to racing.
And yes I agree with your last point, but even if SC could be deployed for one lap it shouldn't have been in this case.
If they had actually been doing what double yellows implied, they would have removed the car quickly and it would have been back to racing.
And yes I agree with your last point, but even if SC could be deployed for one lap it shouldn't have been in this case.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
We as yet have no idea what speed he was at when he impacted, nor what speed he did on previous laps or in general. THe problem with these conditions is again, one lap 200mph might be safe and another lap the same bit at 80mph can be unsafe and the ONLY way for a driver to know the safe speed is effectively trial and error.
It was ABSOLUTELY a safety car required to remove that car, not because of the corner, but because of the likelyhood in changing conditions of drivers not knowing the safe speed.
double yellows could imply slowing by 50kph(which is hard to implement considering 50kph less changes depending on where you are on the track) and he still may have aquaplaned off and hit that truck, he may have hit it less badly, he may have gone under the middle of the truck(had he arrived 1-2 seconds later).
There is a monumental difference between moving Sutil's car in the dry or full wet with everyone on full wet tires and moving that car in changing conditions where lap to lap different cars can do different speeds through there and require different tires.
Just because Merc/Red bull were fine on inter's doesn't mean the Williams(pretty crappy in such weather) and the Marussia didn't need wet tires. You can't in any way know you need to change tires until the inters become rubbish for you, you only find this out when going around on track. When rain increases in a race almost every car will be on the wrong tire for at least a lap, if not a few.
Putting any kind of recovery vehicle on track in changing conditions with a very high chance of another off in the same spot is insane, it needed a safety car to remove Sutil's car in those specific conditions. If they had to remove Sutil's car is another matter entirely.
It was ABSOLUTELY a safety car required to remove that car, not because of the corner, but because of the likelyhood in changing conditions of drivers not knowing the safe speed.
double yellows could imply slowing by 50kph(which is hard to implement considering 50kph less changes depending on where you are on the track) and he still may have aquaplaned off and hit that truck, he may have hit it less badly, he may have gone under the middle of the truck(had he arrived 1-2 seconds later).
There is a monumental difference between moving Sutil's car in the dry or full wet with everyone on full wet tires and moving that car in changing conditions where lap to lap different cars can do different speeds through there and require different tires.
Just because Merc/Red bull were fine on inter's doesn't mean the Williams(pretty crappy in such weather) and the Marussia didn't need wet tires. You can't in any way know you need to change tires until the inters become rubbish for you, you only find this out when going around on track. When rain increases in a race almost every car will be on the wrong tire for at least a lap, if not a few.
Putting any kind of recovery vehicle on track in changing conditions with a very high chance of another off in the same spot is insane, it needed a safety car to remove Sutil's car in those specific conditions. If they had to remove Sutil's car is another matter entirely.