Because they would have to show the drivers as having completed a lap that they didn't.
Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Because they would have to show the drivers as having completed a lap that they didn't.
I don't think There is any need to let cars unlap
You are leading by 40sec and it already gets destroyed by SC. At least a lapped car allows you to keep some of your work
It's a massive bonus for the cars to unlap themselves too as they get put back behind their next target
I dunno. I like the lapped car mayhem
I also don't understand why they can't just form up on grid immediately at SC deployment and allow lapped cars through then
You are leading by 40sec and it already gets destroyed by SC. At least a lapped car allows you to keep some of your work
It's a massive bonus for the cars to unlap themselves too as they get put back behind their next target
I dunno. I like the lapped car mayhem
I also don't understand why they can't just form up on grid immediately at SC deployment and allow lapped cars through then
With lapped cars they should be allowed to unlap themselfs but it shouldnt be managed on the track, they should just move to the side, drop to the back in their respective positions and then race control should just remove the +1 from the timing screens. In this era of technology that would be so easy to do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 15,660
- Location
- The land of milk & beans
But that would mean that the lower teams who get lapped 2/3 times per race would end up completing event less of a race distance. It would give an unfair advantage as they could run less fuel, push the engine harder all knowing they wouldn't have to go as far over a race distance.
I knew someone would say this, I even went so far as writing out a sentence saying "before anyone says fuel blah blah" but removed it.
Planning for a safety car and purposfully putting in less fuel, and then requiring a safety car to just finish a race is not going to happen. If it does then to what extent will this back fire if there is no safety car. Also what impact will it actually have at the top end of the grid.... 0. It will speed up the time under the safety car and if people do bank on safety cars it may just liven up the back of the grid as well.
...but they'd still be laps behind, so what does it matter?
Sounds like an argument for the sake of arguing.
The bigger argument is stating cars as having done more laps than they have. On track they would have been overtaken by the whole field, whereas the computer would show them as having overtaken the whole field themselves. And then what happens if a driver is out of place and after dropping back goes on to win? How could we have the winner of a 60 lap race being a driver that's only completed 59 laps? In most cases it would breach the FIA rules around race distance.
Considering not completing what was considered the full race distance was enough to stop Senna winning a WDC, I can't see the FIA or anyone being particularly keen on manually fiddling the computer to show drivers as having covered different distances to what they have?
Edit: checked the regs and it's all distance measured. Laps are just a result of races using circuits, altering the lap count would artificially alter the drivers race distance which screws with the regulations.
Considering not completing what was considered the full race distance was enough to stop Senna winning a WDC, I can't see the FIA or anyone being particularly keen on manually fiddling the computer to show drivers as having covered different distances to what they have?
Edit: checked the regs and it's all distance measured. Laps are just a result of races using circuits, altering the lap count would artificially alter the drivers race distance which screws with the regulations.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You do realise that the back markers already do less laps anyway, if they are 2 laps behind they finish 2 laps early, so they can already underfuel pretty much knowing they are doing less laps. A caterham isn't going to compete with a Mclaren if you take 2kg's of fuel out of the car and planning to be a lap down, thus needing less fuel is.... still PLANNING TO BE A LAP DOWN. That isn't a fast strategy nor competitive nor an advantage.
The whole situation is retarded, the fundamental goal behind the change is to make the restart more exciting and to hope more changes of places happen.
The safety car is not an overtaking tool, in no way should they focus on over taking from a restart after a safety car. If someone runs out 40 seconds ahead, and they lose 40 seconds due to someone else crashing, the idea isn't to give 2nd place a better chance at overtaking, it's ludicrous. The lead driver may have already lost 40 seconds, other drivers can lose huge amounts of time AND they want to give them more chance of overtaking on top of letting them gain a huge amount of time. Are they on crack?
Improvements/changes to safety car rules should focus purely on safety and making the situation resolve faster. Stopping them on the track on the first lap after a safety car to let the marshals clear the track with complete safety AND as fast as humanly possible while also stopping the fans losing racing laps is an absolutely good reason to do it, even if it gives an unfair advantage to those behind who gain and may get ahead, the reasons for doing it outweigh the unfairness. But sending them around as usual, making it less safe for marshals, wasting racing laps/fuel, having the slow unlapping and then doing the grid start is pathetic. It brings no safety advantage for marshals, no lap saving, only attempting to create more overtaking out of a fake situation.
They just need to leave people in the places they were in to begin with and let the drivers sort it out on track. The lapped cars are blue flagged anyway so I really don't see why they changed it originally.
The FIA need to stop messing about and get on with racing...
The FIA need to stop messing about and get on with racing...
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
That was a ridiculous rule invented at the time to ensure Prost won the WDC.
It worked fine in the past, until the FIA had the idea to allow the backmarkers to unlap themselves. Let all lapped cars drop to the back and apply a +1 lap penalty to the final result I say.
The unlapping is fine by me, as long as it doesn't delay the re-start. I'd far rather the backmarkers got out of the way, than having a restart with Maldonardo or a slow-running Marussia say fourth on the road at somewhere narrow like Canada, potentially contributing to an accident.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 4,652
- Location
- Nottingham
Problem with this rule is that 'full race distance', is a term with no meaning, as seen in a recent race, the race is 'over' when the chequered flag is waved, regardless of when that actually happens.
From what I remember the lapped back markers rule was put in for a season, then removed, and then put back in. It's a stupid rule. The drivers have to jump out the way within 3 blue flags anyway.
The rule has a very specific meaning. Its 305km. The random incident in China was due to article 43.2. Under normal circumstances the race distance is 305km, it doesn't have 'no meaning' at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 15,637
- Location
- Chengdu
Yeah, but everyone and their dog hates the rule! They should be getting rid of the massive waste of time, not using it as the sugar coating for an even worse set of rules!
Yeah, but everyone and their dog hates the rule! They should be getting rid of the massive waste of time, not using it as the sugar coating for an even worse set of rules!
Its a stupid rule made worse by the lapped cars still being limited by the SC delta. They don't pass and then blast round to the back of the queue as fast as possible, they pass and then trundle round at a fixed speed which takes 3 or 4 laps to catch up.
I'm still not entirely certain what the SC delta is even for. How many safety problems were actually caused by cars catching up to the safety car at full speed? I mean, they had to slow down in the actual yellow flag zone anyway or they'd get a penalty. Surely you only need the cars slow where the problem is.
I guess it shows the lack of full-on attention I've been paying to F1 for a little while now, but I honestly don't remember a) when the delta rule came in and b) what rationale was given for it.