[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[E.B]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This makes pitting under a Full Course Yellow in IndyCar seem like child's play. If F1 can, they will over complicate something. Just leave it as it is.

Yep, if it ain't broke don't fix it. As you say F1 has the habit of over complicating everything.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Sorry, yes, I can see the first two, but not the last (which is the summary of the situation).

I can't name the source (may even be a post on this forum), but I believe I have read information that is contrary to what is said in those articles. If I remember correctly it was along the line of even if the software is the same, that the customer teams may not be provided with the information to unlock or take advantage of specific capabilities. That the teams may have specific instructions that provide basic operations, but not the secret sauce stuff.

I can make up an example... Imagine Mercedes has (had) some type of oil burn feature last year. It might have been something like strategically opening up a special valve (PVC) at the right time to allow for specially crafted oil vapors (or the oil itself) to exit from the crank into the intake manifold to boost performance during qualifying. Given they are not overtly to burn anything other than petrol as fuel, I am sure the software doesn't say "oil burn mode", but rather some combination of settings may trigger this (wink wink, nudge nudge!) My point is that this type of information may not be shared with customer teams.

I am just speculating, could very much be wrong, and as I note, the above is a made up example even if it may have some roots in a potential actual scenario.

It seems odd that this new rule would happen unless someone asked for it. I can also imagine that a customer team may have asked (not officially) so as to not be at odds with their supplier. That could even allow them to continue to say "we didn't ask for this and our supplier has always given us parity". Does anyone really think a customer team is going to stand up and say..."Yeah, they have been screwing us. We are glad this change happened." They are at the mercy of whoever supplies them and that includes maintaining a good relationship. About the only one who seems to not be afraid to be critical of their supplier in a customer scenario is RBR. But I actually doubt they asked for this, but who knows.

Richard

Excellent point. It would take very sharp wording and enforcing of the rules to even attempt to address this. Wolff can easily say we supply the exact same software without any guarantee they won't be able to use it in more competitive ways.

I haven't seen any Mercedes customer teams dropping their q3 times as much as the works teams. But they would shut up wouldn't they as you've got the Merc engine and you wouldn't want the jeopardize your delicate position.

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I haven't seen any Mercedes customer teams dropping their q3 times as much as the works teams.

Hmm.. that might have something to do with the Mercedes customer teams not having the exact same chassis and drivers as the works team(??)

But hey....

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Hmm.. that might have something to do with the Mercedes customer teams not having the exact same chassis and drivers as the works team(??)

But hey....

I meant the amount their Q3 times drop in relation to Q2 compared to any other team on the the grid. I reckon anyone will have a hard time assigning that to their chassis or drivers...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Hmm.. that might have something to do with the Mercedes customer teams not having the exact same chassis and drivers as the works team(??)

But hey....

If Q3 time drops were down to drivers alone, would we not see the same results in other teams with high quality drivers?

[S griffin]

I think we misread it, it's only gonna be a standing restart after red flags, not SCs. Still need to get rid of this SC free pass rule, as it has no merit in a driver getting a lap back just because he got lucky with a SC

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think we misread it, it's only gonna be a standing restart after red flags, not SCs. Still

Agreed - a case of immediately jumping to a critical standpoint?

'This year for the first time races may feature standing starts after safety car periods that follow red flags, with the cars all forming up on the grid once the safety car has been called in.

There is also an option for an 'RS' or 'ROLLING START' message if conditions are not suitable for a grid start.'

[Adam43]

Ooo, my fault. I misread that.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Agreed - a case of immediately jumping to a critical standpoint?

'This year for the first time races may feature standing starts after safety car periods that follow red flags, with the cars all forming up on the grid once the safety car has been called in.

There is also an option for an 'RS' or 'ROLLING START' message if conditions are not suitable for a grid start.'

So if a race is to resume after the red flag, the field follows the SC round the track and once the SC is called in, then the field lines up on the grid, like at the end of the parade lap and the restart can be either a standing start or a rolling start.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

So if a race is to resume after the red flag, the field follows the SC round the track and once the SC is called in, then the field lines up on the grid, like at the end of the parade lap and the restart can be either a standing start or a rolling start.

Can just see the screw up, half the grid thinks it is a standing start and the other half thinks it is a rolling start.
Why on earth do they constantly create these areas of uncertainty that can only end badly?

Mess around with everything that works, and blithely ignore huge faults.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Can just see the screw up, half the grid thinks it is a standing start and the other half thinks it is a rolling start.
Why on earth do they constantly create these areas of uncertainty that can only end badly?

Mess around with everything that works, and blithely ignore huge faults.

Back in 2011 IndyCar tried double-file restarts on all tracks. However, on street and road tracks it was a disaster, often producing another caution period. They were then limited to ovals but eventually were stopped mid season 2014 and now it's a single file re-start.

I would have thought Charlie Whiting will have to stipulate whether it's a rolling or standing start, before the field comes out onto the track behind the SC or even before the race takes place. Personally, I don't think the rolling start should even be considered because of the issues IndyCar had with rolling starts on road and street courses.

[E.B]

Shades of Monza when Ronnie P died..... IIRC the rear of grid cars were still arriving at the grid when the race was started, resulting in the rear of grid cars being up to speed too early, catching those ahead and the whole pack was compressed as the track funnelled in where the crash happened?

[Mekola]

!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Can't win. We have seen lapped cars get in the way at restarts and either cause accidents or get in the way of a very exciting finish. People complained then, and that's why the rule to allow lapped cars pass during SC periods was bought in.

If for example, lapped cars were in second and third positions, and the race was then restarted, but now the forth placed car is being held up while the leader is getting away, and then goes onto to win, is that a race result you'd like to see?? And what if the championship decider was between the leader and that forth placed driver? Is that the end to the championship you'd like to see??

Whinge, whinge, whine, whine....

In your second example it should be remembered that if the race hadn’t been stopped the lapped cars would have been between them anyway and hold up the other cars while the leader gets away.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Adam43

In your second example it should be remembered that if the race hadn’t been stopped the lapped cars would have been between them anyway and hold up the other cars while the leader gets away.

Exactly, the driver in the lead has lost that advantage he built up by having lapped cars between him and the others

[bella]

Originally Posted by wnut

Can just see the screw up, half the grid thinks it is a standing start and the other half thinks it is a rolling start.
Why on earth do they constantly create these areas of uncertainty that can only end badly?

Mess around with everything that works, and blithely ignore huge faults.

not saying the new system is right or wrong, but they seem to have multiple methods of making sure drivers and teams know what the score is - the flagging light system will show it, there should be something in car as well iirc (they were testing it the other day?), and they teams have radio and pitboards. it’s not formula 4

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bella

not saying the new system is right or wrong, but they seem to have multiple methods of making sure drivers and teams know what the score is - the flagging light system will show it, there should be something in car as well iirc (they were testing it the other day?), and they teams have radio and pitboards. it’s not formula 4

Time will tell I guess, but IMO ... sooner or later .....!


It is also full of uncertainties and will be called for championship and race result manipulation depending on who is on what strategy when the decision is made to use one restart system or other. The stewarding decisions are often debatable, the sport just plain does not need this as well.

[bella]

you do realise, as crmalcolm posted upthread, this is literally just after red flag situations? it’s not going to be a common situation *at all*.

[deley]

Originally Posted by bella

you do realise, as crmalcolm posted upthread, this is literally just after red flag situations? it’s not going to be a common situation *at all*.

Correct.

The procedure for re-starting a race which has been suspended (red flag) is quite straightforward as detailed in the F1 Sporting Regulations.

In normal circumstances the restart will be a standing start, if conditions are deemed such that a SS isn't considered appropriate (track conditions due to rain for example) then the restart will be a rolling one. Given the level of Comms that exist between race control, the teams and drivers there is no reason why anyone would be confused.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by deley

Correct.

The procedure for re-starting a race which has been suspended (red flag) is quite straightforward as detailed in the F1 Sporting Regulations.

In normal circumstances the restart will be a standing start, if conditions are deemed such that a SS isn't considered appropriate (track conditions due to rain for example) then the restart will be a rolling one. Given the level of Comms that exist between race control, the teams and drivers there is no reason why anyone would be confused.

As long as it's not a double-file rolling start but single file.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As long as it's not a double-file rolling start but single file.

F1 will probably have to work this out for themselves, they are too arrogant to work it out from somebody else's experience, and will have to run into the wall that "nobody could have predicted" for themselves.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 will probably have to work this out for themselves, they are too arrogant to work it out from somebody else's experience, and will have to run into the wall that "nobody could have predicted" for themselves.

Double-file rolling starts were a disaster when IndyCar adopted them. However, you're right that's usually the way with F1. Being too arrogant, as well as over complicating something.

[S griffin]

Yet they got the idea of a safety car off the pace car in America...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Yet they got the idea of a safety car off the pace car in America...

Indianapolis ran a pace car in 1911.
1973 F1 introduced a pace car following the outrage that they kept racing while Roger Williamson burned to death.
The first pace car was run in Canada in 1973 when Scheckter and Cervert crashed into one another blocking the track. The officials then picked up Ganley who was running 6th instead of the leader Revson, causing a rumpus about who had won the race.
Apparently there was a pace car on hand at the 81/82/83 Monaco GP, but it was not deployed.
The next use of a Pace car or "Safety car" as F1 likes to call them was in the 1993 where the cars used were found to be too slow and blamed for Senna's accident. The car was significantly upgraded in 1994 to ensure a quick enough car was used, and the use of a professional racing driver to drive the car came about much later. (????Date)

So in effect it took F1 at best 62 years to try and copy American racing's proven use of the pace car, 82 years to use one on a regular basis, 83 years to get the right car as a pace car, and longer to find out a professional driver was needed to competently drive the thing.
All these teething troubles would have been solved for them by the SCCA if somebody had thought to ask!

Not an impressive timeline, just pure bloody mindedness and arrogance!

[Adam43]

And when introduced there was outcry amongst fans who didn’t want the change.