Jules Bianchi thread for updates and discussion

No, SC was not absolutely needed.

Double yellows means prepare to stop, neither him or the other drivers where doing that.
If he was doing the speed where he could stop, even aquaplaning would meant he would have stopped well before the barriers/machine.
 
At the moment double yellows simply mean 'go a bit slower' whereas some sort of delta speed or limit is required. Go a bit slower could mean 5mph slower which isn't anywhere near slow enough somewhere like Suzuka. There needs to be either a slow zone with a maximum speed for at least the area where there are marshals and machinery on track or something else. Being 'a bit slower' isn't enough any more.
 
Its never been enforced other than for people setting green or purple sectors. Going 0.001% slower than you have previously has become acceptable.
 
Glaucus said:
No, SC was not absolutely needed.

Double yellows means prepare to stop, neither him or the other drivers where doing that.
If he was doing the speed where he could stop, even aquaplaning would meant he would have stopped well before the barriers/machine.
Click to expand...

Wow, when the track conditions are changing the drivers literally couldn't possibly know what that speed was. That is why anyone worth their salt on F1 says changing conditions are the most dangerous, not just full on wet, but when conditions change you do not know what the next lap brings. He could have dropped 30mph which based on his last time around would have been perfectly safe, don't forget he went through at full speed only a lap earlier. But when conditions change that 30mph, which in the dry would have given a 99.999% assurance of safety, could still have seen him fly off the track.

You keep ignoring this point, there is no known safe speed when you aren't aware of the track conditions, a driver can't know the safe speed of a corner in changing conditions until he has been through that corner.

He could have halved his speed thinking it was safe and still gone off.

Double yellows HAVE NO SPEED LIMIT, single yellows HAVE NO SPEED LIMIT, stop acting like they do, they do not, they haven't any time recently( I would say forever but someone will say actually in 1954 at one race they said don't do over 50mph under a yellow).

The rules and their interpretation have been used for years, preparing to stop doesn't mean slow down, they aren't the same thing, stop using them interchangeably. A double yellow means we're giving you an indication in an attempt to give you an extra quarter of a second reaction time to stamp on the brakes because we're making you aware of the slim chance you'll have to stamp on the brakes. It does not mean slow down.

You can be prepared to stop while driving at 50mph or 250mph. being prepared to stop is almost meaningless(as pretty much any racing driver should pretty much always be prepared to stop).
 
Could they have an engine mode which only outputs 50% power for double yellow zones?

All drivers slow down equally, no safety car required.
 
Loo are you are not prepared to stop at 250mph, where the hell did you pull that from.

I'm not ignoring the point, the point is stupid. Be prepared to stop, where is doing 150mph compared to 180mph being prepared to stop? Hence the point is silly and isn't a point.

If he was doing say 50mph he would never reach the barrier let alone at a speed to cause the damage.
There was no need for a SC. Sutils car was recovered fast and early. It just requires existing rules to be enforced.

Those that did pit went back on to inter, who had all ready been round. Do hardly a need for SC for conditions.
 
this_is_gav said:
It's all relative. By your reckoning they shouldn't be able to leave the pitbox or negotiate a hairpin.
Click to expand...

You've just taken it out of context. Pouring down with rain going slow, breaks losing temp, tyres loosing temp, cars bunched up I'm sure there will be collisions in certain circumstances.
 
The only time the SC has been used in the past is when the car off the track is too close to the other cars going around on the track...

Sutil's car was as far off the track as possible, it's just a freak accident that happened. Surely using cranes instead of 10 tonne recovery vehicles would be a better idea.
 
drunkenmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was not a "very high" chance of another off in the same spot. It's extremely rare for F1 cars to have incidents in the same spot, yet alone in such a short space of time.
 
Mr Jack said:
There was not a "very high" chance of another off in the same spot. It's extremely rare for F1 cars to have incidents in the same spot, yet alone in such a short space of time.
Click to expand...

Haven't checked the facts, but I seem to recall watching a series of cars leave the track during an F1 race in Brazil.
 
Mr Jack said:
There was not a "very high" chance of another off in the same spot. It's extremely rare for F1 cars to have incidents in the same spot, yet alone in such a short space of time.
Click to expand...

Of course there is when one of the main reasons of the car going off in the first place is because of water on the track at that precise position!
 
Mr Jack said:
There was not a "very high" chance of another off in the same spot. It's extremely rare for F1 cars to have incidents in the same spot, yet alone in such a short space of time.
Click to expand...

Very high is both one, not a number but comparative( 5% chance would be considered very high risk when talking about motor sports, yet low chance when considering winning on a scratch card) and anyway, you're wrong. There is a high chance of an off at the same spot.... read this important bit, IN CHANGING CONDITIONS. Drivers don't know about aquaplaning till it happens, when the track gets enough water and the drivers can see it for the first time they are 1 second from driving through it, it's too late.

In dry when someone goes off it's a driver mistake, car failure, something, and yes the chance of going off at the same point is pretty ridiculously low and it relatively rarely happens. In rain as conditions approach aquaplaning levels then it happens significantly more often. If cars go off at the same place 0.05% in the dry and 15% due to aquaplaning then that is both very high and absolutely not worth the risk of putting out a tractor/truck/whatever in that path.

Look up on youtube, there are dozens of video's of multiple cars going off in the same corner over and over again in the rain. Rain ENTIRELY changes the chances of things to happen, to the point where putting out a dangerous vehicle without making the track significantly safer with a safety car is completely negligent.

It wouldn't matter if it's a 5% increase, that is statistically huge. But there are so many races where changing conditions has caused loads of drivers to go off and often at the same points. Aquaplaning is not a car failure or driver error, it's something the cars simply can't deal with and can catch out anyone very easily.

The fact that there are video's of f1 cars hitting tractor/similar vehicles from aquaplaning in the rain should suggest that it's not something that never happens.

In more races than I can remember when rain comes in drivers frequently go off on the same corner as rain tends to hit one part of the track first, catching a lot of drivers completely unaware.
 
Mr Jack said:
There was not a "very high" chance of another off in the same spot. It's extremely rare for F1 cars to have incidents in the same spot, yet alone in such a short space of time.
Click to expand...

In neutral conditions, that is true, but in increasingly wet conditions with building standing water (apparently invisible due to the fading light) and the wrong tyres, there's a far, far greater chance of an accident in exactly the same place.
 
Millwall.FC said:
You've just taken it out of context. Pouring down with rain going slow, breaks losing temp, tyres loosing temp, cars bunched up I'm sure there will be collisions in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

They followed the SC around for loads of laps, and nobody crashed then.

Actually, a Caterham did spin. Maybe thats a bad example....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom