[Official] Russian GP Race Weekend Thread

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Casper

That's right. Consider a car with very little clearance under floor pan, it spears off into a gravel trap and basically planes like a boat of the floor pan and the driver can do very little to avoid hitting the fence. Light cars and big wheels mean that the car floats along on the tyre and doesn't sink in.

Tarmac on the other hand allows a driver to hit the picks and stop the car before he gets to the fence, no damage, no injury (the important bit) and he returns to the race as a rule. I can't see any problem with tarmac run offs as they must reduce injury and keep costs down because of the less times that cars don't hit things. We are all about keeping costs down aren't we and drivers getting injured is not a good look and the drivers are not real keen on the idea either.

It is up to the officials to stop drivers using them as part of the circuit. Throw a really heavy penalty on one or two of them and the practise will stop. A pit lane start might do it or failing that exclusion from the event would definitely sort it out though they would never dare to do that.

On the other had if the demarcation between the circuit and the run off as a heavy rumble strip they wouldn't do it anyway.

Why not do as I suggested... when your wheels leave the track the throttle automatically gets cut ?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Why not do as I suggested... when your wheels leave the track the throttle automatically gets cut ?

A couple of things, technically very difficult to implement and if it could be implemented what if the driver needed power to get out of trouble? I doubt if it could be done on a street circuit, the only way I could see would be a geofence and they aren't all that reliable. A geofence is a boundary set up using GPS and used for lots of reasons but not precise enough for this purpose.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

A couple of things, technically very difficult to implement and if it could be implemented what if the driver needed power to get out of trouble? I doubt if it could be done on a street circuit, the only way I could see would be a geofence and they aren't all that reliable. A geofence is a boundary set up using GPS and used for lots of reasons but not precise enough for this purpose.

I both like the concept and also generally agree that it likely wouldn't be easy to implement. Mostly due to "geofence" issues you mention. If that could be solved reliably (and I think it could if they wanted such as via DGPS) then I think the idea would have legs. I think the other argument "needing power to get out of trouble" is a red herring. I can't remember any scenarios in a few decades of viewing in which that would apply. And the power could be reduced not cut so the cars could continue to move at a decent rate. The cars clearly can operate safely today at a reduced rate in the pits, why not elsewhere?

Overall, I have been a fan of some way to penalize cars that run wide on easy to navigate paved run-off areas. Previously my suggestions have been to designate specific "reentry" zones, or paths and that those would be configured in such a way that a natural time penalty would be enforced (i.e. navigating the path will physically slow you down).

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I can't remember any scenarios in a few decades of viewing in which that would apply.

Would you like to explain to a driver's mother/wife/ girlfriend etc why a power cut cost him serious injury or worse. I know it sounds dramatic but stuff happens.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Casper

A couple of things, technically very difficult to implement and if it could be implemented what if the driver needed power to get out of trouble? I doubt if it could be done on a street circuit, the only way I could see would be a geofence and they aren't all that reliable. A geofence is a boundary set up using GPS and used for lots of reasons but not precise enough for this purpose.

It's very easy to do. Just need a loop around the edge of the track. As soon as a car gets 4 wheels across it [or whatever part of the car you decide], a transponder in the car picks it up and cuts the throttle.

[Purist]

Turn 2 at Sochi had heavy rumble strips; it didn't stop the guys running wide. I can say the same thing about a number of corners at various circuits around the world.

Adding designated paths that the drivers have to follow in a paved run-off, via speed bumps, eventually leads to cars getting launched.

We aren't solving the problem of driving standards by trying to take the driver out of the equation in yet another way. This will merely detach them even further, and exacerbate the problem in some other area.

Contracts, and the legal consequences of violating them, is why things like exclusions, and other truly harsh penalties, will never be enforced by the stewards, or at least, never enforceable on certain teams/drivers.

Penalties enforced by anything other than the laws of physics will NEVER be consistent and harsh enough to stamp out the behavior.

Gravel traps have worked VERY well to arrest F1 machinery, Champ Cars, and Prototype Sportscars, which all have the low clearance and flatter bottoms. Also, paved run-off does NOT arrest out-of-control vehicles. That's the primary concern, and if you're still in control of your vehicle, you shouldn't have overcooked it in the first place.

In addition, losing control is often an ESSENTIAL thing for a driver, to let him know that there is a fundamental, and inescapable, problem. I've watched drivers on paved verges, aprons, or run-offs keep their foot in it, and slam into the wall at full tilt. Right up until the instant of impact, they were still somehow convinced that they could save it, because it was NOT forced upon them that they were not fully in control. The NEED to lift off was not imposed upon them, so they kept going right up to the end.

If you have brake failure or a stuck throttle, you're out of luck. The car just needs to be stout enough to absorb the hit into the barriers. We saw this in the Continental Tire Challenge race at Austin about four weeks ago. Even with all that length of run-off at Turn 12 (end of the back stretch), that car, with rather less performance than an F1 car, still hit the wall going 136-mph.

No, reducing costs is NOT my first priority. Driver safety, through improving their on-track behavior, is. Also, the teams aren't REALLY serious about cutting costs either, because if they were, their actual proposals to do so would be much more meaningful and substantial. Besides, getting the drivers to where their mistakes are greatly reduced will significantly cut down the number of incidents to begin with, and thus, the potential for damage or injury as well.

Your geofence could be more dangerous than helpful in high-speed corners. A sudden, and involuntary, change in the control inputs could easily destabilize the car, and be the CAUSE of a driver then losing control and hitting the barriers, especially on a circuit like Spa. Speaking of Spa, and one of its most infamous features, weather, how do you safely implement this in adverse conditions? It's particularly problematic in that case, because the paved run-offs are going to be wetter, giving less, or less consistent, grip than the track, once a drying line is apparent. In full wet conditions, the run-off can often give more grip than the track itself, so by exactly how much do you have the system cut the throttle then?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

Would you like to explain to a driver's mother/wife/ girlfriend etc why a power cut cost him serious injury or worse. I know it sounds dramatic but stuff happens.

Yes, I think you are being overly dramatic. You can use that argument for just about anything. Driver X would have survived if...

* They had more power
* They had less power
* Tires were stickier
* Tires were less sticky
* They had more downforce
* They had less downforce

Can you give a real or even hypothetical scenario to back up your argument?

"Getting out of the way" to me implies that driver X is off track and is trying to avoid driver Y who is also off track (or is about to be off track). Given driver field of view, etc. I think there is few if any scenarios in which driver X can actually see driver Y AND need gobs of power.

I can see multiple cars running wide at the start, or single cars running wide due to failed pass attempts, or just over cook corner on their own, or bad weather catching multiple drivers out. In all situations the ability to turn and slow are more important than accelerating. Or if you need to accelerate do you really need 100% power?

Maybe when in the run-off areas, they are dodging meteors, or fast zombies and need 100% power?

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by davyboy

It's very easy to do. Just need a loop around the edge of the track. As soon as a car gets 4 wheels across it [or whatever part of the car you decide], a transponder in the car picks it up and cuts the throttle.

I know I am about to sound contrary, but I don't think it would be just that simple. This is more to the point that Casper is likely trying to make, but I can see that if someone is right on the edge, and a car goes four wheels off that a severe cut of power will unbalance the car and that may effectively cause an accident. But I think a graduated power reduction with additional parameters could be done. Again, I think it is technically doable, but likely complex.

Richard

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I know I am about to sound contrary, but I don't think it would be just that simple. This is more to the point that Casper is likely trying to make, but I can see that if someone is right on the edge, and a car goes four wheels off that a severe cut of power will unbalance the car and that may effectively cause an accident. But I think a graduated power reduction with additional parameters could be done. Again, I think it is technically doable, but likely complex.

Richard

The power reduction could be different at different times of the race - wet or dry - or whatever you want really, but I think it's an elegant and safe solution to the problem... which probably means it'll never happen

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Can you give a real or even hypothetical scenario to back up your argument?

is this an issue for the driver who went off track or for the driver who plows into the back of the offending vehicle when race control starts cutting power?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Purist

Gravel traps have worked VERY well to arrest F1 machinery, Champ Cars, and Prototype Sportscars, which all have the low clearance and flatter bottoms. Also, paved run-off does NOT arrest out-of-control vehicles. That's the primary concern, and if you're still in control of your vehicle, you shouldn't have overcooked it in the first place.

agree with this.

my personal feeling is that gravel traps provide an overly harsh penalty for relatively minor errors in judgment and for me i would prefer as many cars staying in a race as possible. its akin to ejecting a player for being offside.

if there are any problems with the consistency of the rules being applied, requests to give back a place etc i would argue better stewarding is preferable to giving the stewards more penalty options.

all that said though, if gravel traps are in fact safer then that takes priority over what i think makes a better race.

[Purist]

My thought would be, fewer guys going off, because they know there are automatic consequences for doing so, means better driving, fewer incidents, more finishers, and therefore, a better race.

I do think gravel traps can be done better in some cases. For instance, I don't think it's a good idea to start the gravel immediately at the edge of the track. Give them a few meters of grass first. That, along with the bit of extra room afforded by the curbs, ought to minimize the chances of a very minor error resulting in getting stuck. Also, leave a strip of grass behind the trap, so someone who has slowed, regained control, and gotten through can drive around and rejoin.

Of course, this glosses over something else that I think would help the situation greatly. Just get rid of the "no outside assistance" rule. The driver in the trap will lose time and position while beached and waiting for extraction. That penalty seems enough for making an error large enough to end up in the litter, and with this rule change, need NOT result in a retirement at all.

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I know I am about to sound contrary, but I don't think it would be just that simple. This is more to the point that Casper is likely trying to make, but I can see that if someone is right on the edge, and a car goes four wheels off that a severe cut of power will unbalance the car and that may effectively cause an accident. But I think a graduated power reduction with additional parameters could be done. Again, I think it is technically doable, but likely complex.

Richard

Rather than cutting the power, wouldn't it be more practical for a transponder to signal that a (specific) car has gone "all 4 off", and thereby trigger an automatic penalty - a drive-through maybe?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

is this an issue for the driver who went off track or for the driver who plows into the back of the offending vehicle when race control starts cutting power?

Regarding a hypothetical, I am looking for any example. I think the best I can come up with is the one above in which an abrupt power level change could unbalance a car that is on the edge.

To your question, I would assume it would apply to either driver. I would expect both to have been hit by the same power reduction if both are off track. Regarding the second driver hitting the first in the rear. I am sure you can create a scenario if two drivers are nose to tail, drive off the course without braking, remaining nose to tail and then the logic to reduce power kicks in slowing the first car fractionally before the second and if the second driver doesn't attempt to slow or move out of the way, then yes he would hit the first due to the power reduction. But there is so many other things going wrong in that scenario that prevents it from being realistic.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

Rather than cutting the power, wouldn't it be more practical for a transponder to signal that a (specific) car has gone "all 4 off", and thereby trigger an automatic penalty - a drive-through maybe?

First, I don't feel strongly that the power reduction idea is the "best". But mostly just arguing that it is technically doable.

Regarding triggering a drive through. It would be easier to implement as it would just be another datapoint in the telemetry and otherwise they would be no need to attempt to "control" the car (reduction in power) and it would avoid potential safety issues (which I think are likely edge cases for the most part). My concern with triggering a drive through is that seems harsh.

Another idea (thinking out loud) is that a power reduction could be triggered very shortly after the car passes through the "geofence". But rather than it being some type of drastic and abrupt cut, it might be a very small cut and it might also last a longer time. So lets say the car looses only 5% power, but for 30 seconds. It would likely happen prior to the car rejoining the track, and also wouldn't happen so quickly that a close driver would run up his tailpipe, but... it would punish the offending driver. It would be a push to pass in reverse. All of a sudden that driver would be vulnerable for a good portion of a lap or a whole lap. This likely could be easily done by temporarily adjusting the maximum fuel flow rate down.

Again, I actually think other ideas are better. Specifically run-off reentry zones. But there might be some areas that drivers would abuse that couldn't be solved by my idea of run-off rentry zones. Likely tracks that drivers tend to run wide just enough to be all off, but then immediately back on track and doing all of this at high speed. But it seems like this conversation is really about what to do (if anything) about deep entry into run-offs???

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Another idea (thinking out loud) is that a power reduction could be triggered very shortly after the car passes through the "geofence".

As someone who has had first hand knowledge of GPS systems the Geofence system is not a starter. The accuracy is nowhere good enough and the fence like all GPS stuff moves over some hours. F1 teams do not use GPS for data logging for those reasons. Every data channel that means anything to them is done by physical sensors.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

As someone who has had first hand knowledge of GPS systems the Geofence system is not a starter. The accuracy is nowhere good enough and the fence like all GPS stuff moves over some hours. F1 teams do not use GPS for data logging for those reasons. Every data channel that means anything to them is done by physical sensors.

Any particular reason why Differential GPS (DGPS) wouldn't work?

Richard

[johnh875]

Transponder loops could be used instead of satellite based sensors at known hot spots. For example the V8supercars have such a sensor at the turn 1 chicane at Adelaide for the Clipsal 500, so that if a driver takes too much kerb (all 4 off) it registers, and they lose the lap in qually. In the race they have an allowance of 3 triggers before they get a drive-through on the next occasion - this does get used like fouls in basketball, save them till near the end of the race and use them deliberately to gain ground on a competitor.

[davyboy]

Not sure whey geofences are necessary when transponder loops are simpler to implement and more accurate. In terms of speed reduction, currently if a car leaves the track and runs across the grass for example, it's speed will be reduced. It'll be significantly reduced if it takes to a gravel trap. I can't see how a reduction in speed when it goes across a tarmac run off area would be any different. In fact it would be a whole lot safer as the driver would most likely be still in control of the car.

[Greem]

Maybe I'm a bit confused Davyboy, but isn't the point that:

a) tarmac run-off means the drivers *don't* slow down
b) see (a)

Look at Silverstone's Copse Corner - run wide there now (and this applies to almost all series) and you can keep your foot in with less steering angle overall, thus keeping up a higher speed and emerging at least alongside or perhaps in front of the guy you were running with.

I've largely kept quiet on the issue of run-off areas, but at the exact moment that a driver runs into a corner they are the only person with any actual responsibility for getting the line right.

If we throw more and more technology at the problem, it will distance the drivers from that even further.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Greem

Maybe I'm a bit confused Davyboy, but isn't the point that:

a) tarmac run-off means the drivers *don't* slow down
b) see (a)

Look at Silverstone's Copse Corner - run wide there now (and this applies to almost all series) and you can keep your foot in with less steering angle overall, thus keeping up a higher speed and emerging at least alongside or perhaps in front of the guy you were running with.

I've largely kept quiet on the issue of run-off areas, but at the exact moment that a driver runs into a corner they are the only person with any actual responsibility for getting the line right.

If we throw more and more technology at the problem, it will distance the drivers from that even further.

A Nail/Head interface scenario Greem, I agree entirely.

Also, this "four wheels off rule" is hardly a new idea, I remember drivers being penalised in the British Grand Prix for using the old circuit at Paddock Hill Bend. This (for younger readers) was at Brands Hatch, how long ago was that?
The rule just needs enforcing. (Totally off-topic, but have any UK drivers spotted less people using their mobile 'phone whilst driving since it was made illegal? Another rule that requires enforcing!)

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Not sure whey geofences are necessary when transponder loops are simpler to implement and more accurate.

Agree.

Richard

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

(Totally off-topic, but have any UK drivers spotted less people using their mobile 'phone whilst driving since it was made illegal? Another rule that requires enforcing!)

The more people use a GPS in the car, the more that's happening.

I personally didn't find Russia too boring. Japan, I thought was about a 5 out of ten and this similar. It was a race borne out of the tyre situation or lack thereof, but it was okay. The fastest cars were in the fastest positions and I certainly wouldn't want that all the time, but I've left a lot of mild hypocrisy on the net with people proclaiming this so boring despite being the same who criticised the marginal tyres.

Or do people just want a bit more middle ground like we've had for much of the season?