F1: Is the safety car sytem seriously flawed/unfair?

mmj_uk · 12 Jul 2010 at 21:53

Is it right that a totally meaningless (in terms of the race result) accident at the back of the field can have such a detrimental affect on the race result for other drivers?

Take for instance Silverstone yesterday where Webber in 1st place had built up a several second lead over Hamilton in 2nd, one of the tailenders cars falls apart all over the track the safety car comes out and as a result Webbers hard work up until that point is completely undone and Hamilton is right up behind him again, what if Hamilton (who should really be several seconds behind) had overtook Webber and won the race by a car length? is it fair?

How about Vettel who was at the time over a minute behind the leader, should he be allowed to close a 40 second gap just because there is a little bit of debris on the track? had it not been for the safety car yesterday Sutil, Scumacher, Hulkenburg all would've finished a place higher and Liuzzi would have earned a valuable point.

Lets not also forget Renault who were already caught 'abusing' the safety car in order to influence the outcome of a race in their favour.

Would it not be fairer to have a system whereby all drivers pit under the safety car and are then released from the pit lane based on the most recent split times before the accident?

What are your thoughts? and is there a better system that could be implemented?

Glaucus · 12 Jul 2010 at 21:57

No, as 90% of the cars would die, from overheating. As well as crap from a spectators view.

Racing incidents, it's the luck of the draw.

mmj_uk · 12 Jul 2010 at 22:15

AcidHell2 said:
No, as 90% of the cars would die, from overheating. As well as crap from a spectators view.

Racing incidents, it's the luck of the draw.

They could turn off the engines and put all the cooling gadgets on the car as they do on the grid until the time is close to releasing the car, obviously it will take more organizing and they would need some sort of release system in place.

Is entertainment for the spectators really more important than fairness and an accurate result?

Should a sport of skill be influenced so much by luck? for example if Vettel wins the championship by 2-3 points he will have won it thanks to the safety car coming out at Silverstone allowing him to close an otherwise impossible gap and secure some points.

JRS · 12 Jul 2010 at 22:16

AcidHell2 said:
Racing incidents, it's the luck of the draw.

That.

If you're quick enough to be in the lead on merit, and the pace car comes out, then you're surely quick enough to retain that lead when you go back to green flag racing.

The_Abyss · 12 Jul 2010 at 23:03

mmj_uk said:
Would it not be fairer to have a system whereby all drivers pit under the safety car and are then released from the pit lane based on the most recent split times before the accident?

If you do that you may as well go further, and not have individual race results on the tracks, and just total up all the time from all the races on the calendar and then work it out. In fact, there's no need for the cars to even be on the same track at the same time.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of changing it....

Glaucus · 12 Jul 2010 at 23:27

mmj_uk said:
Is entertainment for the spectators really more important than fairness and an accurate result?
.

It is accurate, it is part of the rules and just one of those things a racing incident. If someone takes you out, do we bring everyone into the pit, get the guy a new car and send them all back out again.

whitecrook · 12 Jul 2010 at 23:35

What little I've seen of NASCAR seems similar to this, deliberately. Basically the race a few hundred laps and bring out the pace car every 10 laps or something to bunch the pack up again, and then they drive round in some more circles. I don't understand it.

mmj_uk · 12 Jul 2010 at 23:36

JRS said:
That.

If you're quick enough to be in the lead on merit, and the pace car comes out, then you're surely quick enough to retain that lead when you go back to green flag racing.

But a driver may just make one mistake due to worn tyres which costs him 3 seconds and because of the safety car eradicating his lead he loses a position, if he had his original 10 second lead then the 3 seconds wouldn't have mattered, how was he to know thrashing his tyres early on to build up a 10 second lead would be a total waste of effort?

The_Abyss said:
If you do that you may as well go further, and not have individual race results on the tracks, and just total up all the time from all the races on the calendar and then work it out. In fact, there's no need for the cars to even be on the same track at the same time.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of changing it....

There's no need to change the points system, it just seems flawed that a safety car being deployed for tiny things such as debris on the track should have such a massive/game changing influence on the outcome of a race.

There must be a better way?

Glaucus · 12 Jul 2010 at 23:37

whitecrook said:
What little I've seen of NASCAR seems similar to this, deliberately. Basically the race a few hundred laps and bring out the pace car every 10 laps or something to bunch the pack up again, and then they drive round in some more circles. I don't understand it.

The cars are very close, lot's of over taking. much more about pure racing. And lot's of accidents due to sheer number of cars and being 4+ side by side.

mmj_uk · 12 Jul 2010 at 23:45

AcidHell2 said:
It is accurate, it is part of the rules and just one of those things a racing incident. If someone takes you out, do we bring everyone into the pit, get the guy a new car and send them all back out again.

What's accurate about a driver who drives without fail 1 second a lap faster than his closest rival and only having a 0.5sec lead after 30 laps? sure it's in the rules but they are by no means perfect.

New cars aren't allowed the only difference is the remaining runners start from the pit lane (or maybe they stop on the grid?) and are released with the previous split times intact similar to WRC.

Glaucus · 12 Jul 2010 at 23:59

mmj_uk said:
New cars aren't allowed .

Nor is stopping in the pits and being released with same time difference. it's a silly idea would wreck the continuity, put a massive strain on the cars (the blowers are no substitute for an average of 120+mph or what ever most circuits are these days). Above all, just not needed, it is how racing is done and has been done in all categories. It is one of those things, in fact teams include safety cars in there strategy calls, on certain tracks.

You also have the 2hour time limit, which is needed for tv rights and the like. It just wouldn't work.

WRc is not a multi car race. it is not comparable, different rules and constraints.

BigglesPiP · 13 Jul 2010 at 00:06

The only thing wrong with the safety cars is these stupid new rules and lines painted on the track.

JRS · 13 Jul 2010 at 07:23

mmj_uk said:
But a driver may just make one mistake due to worn tyres which costs him 3 seconds and because of the safety car eradicating his lead he loses a position, if he had his original 10 second lead then the 3 seconds wouldn't have mattered, how was he to know thrashing his tyres early on to build up a 10 second lead would be a total waste of effort?

He wasn't to know. Them's the breaks.

Yes, it's massively irritating when a safety car comes out and kills the lead that a guy has pulled out. Invariably it also allows someone who didn't deserve it to get back into contention (Vettel this time), and occasionally you see it coincide with a penalty call so perfectly that it completely ruins a guy's afternoon (as with Alonso). But in this case of this race, it didn't really matter - Webber was going to stay in the lead no matter what, Vettel might have been quick enough to catch the pack anyway, and Alonso should have given the place straight back to Kubica and headed all that nonsense off at the pass.

dannyjo22 · 13 Jul 2010 at 08:54

AcidHell2 said:
Racing incidents, it's the luck of the draw.

Piquet and Flav would disagree

GravyMonster · 13 Jul 2010 at 09:16

How about rather than having a safety car, when there is need to neutralise the track, race control send a signal to the ECU of all cars which limits the engine to a certain RPM which would restrict the car to a maximum of 100mph (or whatever the top speed of the SC would be).

This way the cars each maintain a gap to each other and no massive advantage could be had by anyone. Eg. Vettel wouldn't have closed up his 40-odd seconds, and likewise, Webber wouldn't have lost his 10 second lead.

rpstewart · 13 Jul 2010 at 10:18

Spunkey said:
How about rather than having a safety car, when there is need to neutralise the track, race control send a signal to the ECU of all cars which limits the engine to a certain RPM which would restrict the car to a maximum of 100mph (or whatever the top speed of the SC would be).

This way the cars each maintain a gap to each other and no massive advantage could be had by anyone. Eg. Vettel wouldn't have closed up his 40-odd seconds, and likewise, Webber wouldn't have lost his 10 second lead.

But doing that defeats one of the purposes of the safety car which is to bunch up the pack such that there is a gap in the traffic behind the pack to allow the marshals etc to do their job in relative safety. If all you do is slow each individual car in position then you can't necessarily create the gap necessary for someone to recover debris or whatever else needs done.

GravyMonster · 13 Jul 2010 at 11:09

Smart arse.

The_Abyss · 14 Jul 2010 at 00:32

But he's correct. It also ensures that there is another variable in the sport, to keep it genuine and interesting. Otherwise, as was the risk a few years ago, it becomes so sterile you may as well run the championship in the wind tunnel and on a test track.

GravyMonster · 14 Jul 2010 at 09:15

I know he is. TBH I don't have a problem with the safety car rules. One day it'll work for you. Another day it'll ruin your race. It all evens out in the end.

My idea was just a thought I'd had the night before

Baboonanza · 14 Jul 2010 at 09:24

mmj_uk said:
Is entertainment for the spectators really more important than fairness and an accurate result?

Yes. The sport doesn't exist to serve the drivers, it exists to entertain the audience. Reducing the exicement to increase 'fairness' serves nobody in the long-run.