R.I.P. wet weather F1 racing

[Sodemo]

I remember the Sepang race in 2001, it poured down, and whilst most of the grid was on the Michelin full wet, the Ferrari drivers were on the Bridgestone inter. The safety car was out for what seemed like ages, pounding round and round. Eventually the safety car came in, but not until most of the standing water had gone from the racing line. After the race, sceptics suggested that it was the Ferrari drivers talking to race control stating it was still too wet, whilst the drivers on the full wet were saying it was good to go.

[wnut]

There is no point in playing blind man's bluff with a lottery deciding who wins and who goes to hospital or the morgue.
If you can't see you can't race.

[strider]

At the time I thought the Safety Car stayed out too long at the second start, Jarno Trulli has since said that Charlie Whiting got it exactly right.

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but it is a fact that no-one (except PDLR) had previously tried the Pirelli intermediates.

[Cauchy]

Originally Posted by Louis Agilais

I don't agree that the race director has the "responsability for the safety of the drivers". Bull****! That responsability is for the drivers themselves and their teams and no one else. Period. They are the ones who should judge if they should continue, what pace to do so, etc. If they judge "undrivable", then go to the pits and stop. Don't drive. I'm pretty sure someone will be brave enough to continue and snatch the win.


Just like USA 05. don't force the ones who are not afraid to race (or put themselves in a position to do be able to, by not having the car so close to the ground, or by being carefull/smart or just by being damn good) to lose their oportunity.. And if some cars go to the barriers or someone gets hurt, it was still his choice, his responsability. Disgusting.

I side with Prost in regard to racing in the wet. The issue in my mind with wet races is the lack of visability not the reduced amount of grip. Some examples of crashes that were the result of poor visability; Didier Pironi, who suffered carrer ending leg injueres. Also at Adelaide in 89, Prost refused to race in the conditions. Senna crashed in the back of Brundle at 170mph+, due to the lack of visability.

[Purist]

Wnut, is it even possible to be killed, or that seriously injured, in a current F1 car on any current FIA Grade 1 or Grade 2 circuit?

I honestly think your concerns are overblown.

Cauchy, I did NOT see any standing water on track at Hockenheim at the site of Pironi's crash, so I'm NOT convinced the visibility could have been that bad. Anyway, in 1982, you couldn't count on the structural integrity of the car, no matter how good that track safety was. (sarcasm on) So, I guess they shouldn't have raced if there was any real threat of an incident, so they just shouldn't have raced at all. (sarcasm off)

At the end of the day, these are supposed to be the "best" drivers in the world, in the "best" circuit, road racing cars on Earth. Therefore, it is UNacceptable that they not race in the rain. If these truly are the "best" cars and drivers, anything less than being capable of running in wet conditions is just not good enough.

If the visibility in rain is truly that bad, then drivers have clearly proven they are able to deal with it with their other senses for decades already anyway, and thus proven that it is NOT 100% necessary to literally see everything that's going on around them. Drivers have ears and tactile senses to detect their surroundings, and brains to memorize the tracks and accurately anticipate what's coming up ahead.

Finally, i have 20/300-20/400 vision, out of one eye, with my glasses. I know what I'm able to see. I also have some concept of how many orders of magnitude better "normal" vision is, given what people with "normal" vision tell me they can see. Based on all of that, I'm definitely less than convinced that the drivers are THAT completely blind when in the rain and the spray. Sorry, but from my perspective, even in the worst of conditions, they still must have it pretty darn good in the visibility department.

[White flag man]

Sounds like a good case for wheel arches.

[Cauchy]

Originally Posted by Purist

Cauchy, I did NOT see any standing water on track at Hockenheim at the site of Pironi's crash, so I'm NOT convinced the visibility could have been that bad.

Thats simply not true, the track was quite flooded on Saturday. Dildier saw Derek Daly's Williams car and its spray, which was moving to the right side of the track. He assumed the left side would be free and smashed into the back of Prost as a result, who was on a warm up lap and was unseen.

[Louis Agilais]

Originally Posted by Cauchy

I side with Prost in regard to racing in the wet. The issue in my mind with wet races is the lack of visability not the reduced amount of grip. Some examples of crashes that were the result of poor visability; Didier Pironi, who suffered carrer ending leg injueres. Also at Adelaide in 89, Prost refused to race in the conditions. Senna crashed in the back of Brundle at 170mph+, due to the lack of visability.

I'm not stupid or unreasonable, I see your point, but:
1. I do remember accidents a lot worse in non wet races: imola 94.
2. according to your information we've had 30 years of wet racing without any serious accidents (with serious consequences). I can assure this for the 20 years I've been seeing F1.

[Louis Agilais]

Forgot to say this 20/30 years seem acceptable.What's bugging me is that they effectively killed wet weather racing, to me one of the most exciting factors in a GP. You see that when the SC goes away they all change to inters in 1 or 2 laps

[Moosehead]

Presuming the bad visibility is caused by the width of tyre (I'm comparing against MotoGP at Silverstone) then make F1 rain tyres be narrow and tall. The extra height will stop the plank riding on the water and the lack of grip will slow them down anyway.

[TRuss]

I think the decision was based on three things: Lack of experience by all on the new tires, a street circuit that sees little use, and the fact that the circuit has claimed numerous cars from some of the best in even the best of conditions. It most likely would've been a crash fest. Yes the SC was probably left out for too long though.

The lack of respect for the drivers around here is a bit disturbing though. I can't understand why anyone would think that it isn't possible to die in a current F1 car.

[Louis Agilais]

What do you mean lack of respect? It's just a question of personal responsability. Everytime I enter a plane or go drive at 200 km/h, I know I'm defying nature. We are not made to move at those speeds, and if anything goes wrong, we have to be prepared to the consequences.
The same with drivers. If they chose to make a living by driving, it's their choice. If they go race in the rain, it's their choice. If they put themselves on the position (with contracts, teams, sponsors) of not being able to refuse to race (without losing money or future employment) if they don't like the conditions, it was still their choice to sign those contracts.

Freedom --> Responsability

[rocketcar]

Apart for the odd crash or car in unsafe position the saftey car should not have been needed. Martin Brundle heavily critised its use during the race and mentioned that he drove in rain far worse the weekend before, and being there i can confirm, you could not see the preceding cars due to the spray. F1 goes over the top, SC should be used when there is a significant chance of aquaplaning, and even then it should be red flagged. The fact that Button said he needed the intermediates and a virgin racing car changed to them illustrates health and saftey gone mad and wet weather f1 a thing of the past. F1 is graduallyt getting worse and this is only another thing that pushes me futher and futher away from it.

[Sodemo]

Visibility has always been bad in the rain, nothing has changed. Its just that the drivers today are more mollycoddled.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Purist

Wnut, is it even possible to be killed, or that seriously injured, in a current F1 car on any current FIA Grade 1 or Grade 2 circuit?

I honestly think your concerns are overblown.

No doubt about it: it is very easily possible. We've been incredibly lucky for the last 17 years, but I'm afraid it will turn round and bite us one day. Just as people were complacent before Imola 94.

I am in two minds over racing in very wet conditions. There is no issue whatsoever with grip, but spray is a different thing altogether. As a spectator, I want to see a race so I was hugely disappointed by the continuous interference from Bernd's Buggy. As an ex-racer, I sympathise because racing in spray is seriously scary, and the dangers are much further beyond the driver's control.

If I thought spray could be controlled by mudguards, I would be all in favour of mandating something like that. But look at the spray you get from a lorry on a motorway, and that despite fairly comprehensive coverage with those doormat thingies. The only advantage in F1 would be that the mudguards would be much closer to the tyres.

[Louis Agilais]

Quote from Gilles Villeneuve (talking about snowmobile racing):
"Every winter, you would reckon on three or four big spills — and I'm talking about being thrown on to the ice at 100 miles per hour. Those things used to slide a lot, which taught me a great deal about control. And the visibility was terrible! Unless you were leading, you could see nothing, with all the snow blowing about. Good for the reactions — and it stopped me having any worries about racing in the rain."

Roebuck (1986) p.211 cited by Wikipedia

[TRuss]

I don't understand why drivers are being blamed and badmouthed...they didn't make the call. I'm sure several were ready to go while others were probably quite content to putter behind the safety car. I just feel that it is selfish to think that some would rather the drivers risk their safety further for their entertainment because that's what the drivers signed up for. These people give motorsports fans a bad name. As if we are a blood thirsty bunch that is totally okay with our heroes dying, and getting injured because that's what they signed up for and damnit I want to watch a race on the television today. Sure that's a inherent risk of the sport, but if those in charge have decided that's it's not a good idea to race...well I guess that's why it's their call and not ours.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Visibility has always been bad in the rain, nothing has changed. Its just that the drivers today are more mollycoddled.

Motor Racing is an inherently dangerous sport.
Seeing someone killed in a racing accident is one of the most horrible things that anyone can be exposed to!
Knowing that someone died because he was coerced into a game of chance racing blind and effectively murdered so a few ghouls could have an afternoons entertainment is just absurd!
The ramifications of a death or injury in racing have life time ramifications for the driver his family and friends and the sport in general.

We have a responsibility to recognise the momentous stupidity of certain past practises and make sure they are not repeated. Racing blind is just such a practice.

For anyone not convinced go here
http://www.motorsportmemorial.org/thismonth.php?db=ct

and see the number of people who have died racing! Consider too how many people associated with these people were affected.

Gilles Villeneuve - we all know that approach did not end well!

There is no skill in a game of dice with lives for stakes just bravado and stupidity!

[Louis Agilais]

Originally Posted by wnut

Gilles Villeneuve - we all know that approach did not end well!

Actually he died trying to avoid a slow car when the slow car also moved over at the same time - so, pure bad luck, nothing to do with wet weather or his approach.

Senna, probably a car problem. Ratzenberg the same, I believe. The point is that these terrible accidents are dued to unpredictable circustances, something that can't be controled - that's the definition of accident, in fact, something unexpected. It can be anything.

One thing one can do is to reduce the consequences of an accident: improve the safety, and that fortunatelly has already been done, it seems, very well. Today maybe Gilles V.,Senna and RR had survived, I'm sure some post-94 accidents would have been a lot worse if it wasn't for the safety improvements in the last 15 years - I aprove all of them.

Another thing is trying to prevent it: that just doesn't work, because accidents are unpredictable. So, next time someone dies, it may be due to spunning in the water, or for any other reason, we just can't tell.
Yes, if we prevent wet weather racing, maybe there's less accidents. (but there's no guarantee that would prevent deaths or serious injuries from happening). Also, if we reduce speeds to 80 km/h there would probably be less accidents, right? But, where do we stop with the prevention? Not racing?

(TRuss)
And nobody here is blood thirsty or okay with our heros dying. we are just racing fans exchanging opinions, ok? Believe me, in the end of the day, I couldn't care less if they race or not, there's a lot more I like to do than just watching F1, so you don't have to worry about my entertainment wishes causing someone to die (also, I don't have the power nor wish to).

About personal responsability, I'll try to illustrate what I said previously with a Jerry Seinfeld sketch (quite funny, actually):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6fejWutXCk

[Sodemo]

Maybe we should all just stay at home because its much safer? In fact, im never leaving my flat now, you just never know. Never going to have another cup of coffee, beer, or eat a curry, just in case. Never going to use my car again, those tyres - you just can't trust them.

The irony is, that if it were any other series, F3, touring cars, LMS etc, they would have been racing in those full wet conditions, and they have drivers that are arguably much less experienced.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Louis Agilais

Actually he died trying to avoid a slow car when the slow car also moved over at the same time - so, pure bad luck, nothing to do with wet weather or his approach.

Senna, probably a car problem. Ratzenberg the same, I believe. The point is that these terrible accidents are dued to unpredictable circustances, something that can't be controled - that's the definition of accident, in fact, something unexpected. It can be anything.

One thing one can do is to reduce the consequences of an accident: improve the safety, and that fortunatelly has already been done, it seems, very well. Today maybe Gilles V.,Senna and RR had survived, I'm sure some post-94 accidents would have been a lot worse if it wasn't for the safety improvements in the last 15 years - I aprove all of them.

Another thing is trying to prevent it: that just doesn't work, because accidents are unpredictable. So, next time someone dies, it may be due to spunning in the water, or for any other reason, we just can't tell.
Yes, if we prevent wet weather racing, maybe there's less accidents. (but there's no guarantee that would prevent deaths or serious injuries from happening). Also, if we reduce speeds to 80 km/h there would probably be less accidents, right? But, where do we stop with the prevention? Not racing?

(TRuss)
And nobody here is blood thirsty or okay with our heros dying. we are just racing fans exchanging opinions, ok? Believe me, in the end of the day, I couldn't care less if they race or not, there's a lot more I like to do than just watching F1, so you don't have to worry about my entertainment wishes causing someone to die (also, I don't have the power nor wish to).

About personal responsability, I'll try to illustrate what I said previously with a Jerry Seinfeld sketch (quite funny, actually):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6fejWutXCk

The Seinfeld sketch was pretty good, but the point is we try to protect the nitwits - seat belts, hans devices etc.

Lauda and Prost both refused to race in certain places in the wet.
Lauda lost the WDC because of this, nobody got killed that day, but Lauda imo was braver to not race than those who did that day.
Lauda's courage I think is beyond question he not only nearly died in a racing car, but returned and raced with undiminished pace.

It was unfair that he lost a championship refusing to race in conditions that were ridiculous.

As I said earlier if you can't see, you can't race.
There is no skill in a game of chance, only luck.

My point about Gilles is that he had no regard for his personal safety, he was magnificent, but always placed himself at great risk. He was in more danger than any other driver, I am unsure of what percentage he was to blame in the collision with Mass, but he would have been right over the ragged edge and afaik Mass was not sanctioned for the accident.

Gille was magnificent, but his career was punctuated by a series of massive accidents!

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by wnut

Motor Racing is an inherently dangerous sport.
Seeing someone killed in a racing accident is one of the most horrible things that anyone can be exposed to!
Knowing that someone died because he was coerced into a game of chance racing blind and effectively murdered so a few ghouls could have an afternoons entertainment is just absurd!
The ramifications of a death or injury in racing have life time ramifications for the driver his family and friends and the sport in general.

We have a responsibility to recognise the momentous stupidity of certain past practises and make sure they are not repeated. Racing blind is just such a practice.

For anyone not convinced go here
http://www.motorsportmemorial.org/thismonth.php?db=ct

Yes indeed, visit that site and you'll find Formula Ford racers who died at Mallory Park in 1969 or 1970 when I first had a go at racing. In accidents that you would consider a "mild shunt" today. These "incidents" got a couple of lines in that week's Motorsport News, such were the different attitudes to death in those days

Thanks to many people, Stewart, Mosely etc it's got to the stage now where club racing or national racing is far more dangerous than the highest tiers of the sport. Eventually the others will catch up. This is a marvellous achievement. I would far rather have a shunt in an F1 car (or an Audi LMP1) than anything else regardless of speed.

Of course nobody wants to see anybody seriously injured or killed but the overreaction last weekend with the safety car use was clear for everyone to see.

The "show" is the most important thing in F1, that's what brings in the money. To think people won't switch channels when a safety car is going around for 10 laps in perfectly driveable conditions is rather optimistic.

As for visibility, that's the one thing that hasn't changed over the years, you either accept it or do a Lauda and park the car imho.

[JamesH]

Has visibility reduced in the last few years of F1?

I dunno, but I think it is very possible given the aerodynamics at the back of an F1 car are so extreme and could cause a much greater visibility problem. (or it could be better.

[TRuss]

I understand both points clearly. My final point was that we are not repsonsible for making the call if they race or not. There are people who are at the track and are who considered smart enough as that they get paid to make that decision. They know what is going on, they are talking to the teams and they make the call. Not us. We're just some guys sitting at home very far removed. I'd love to see them race as much as anybody, but this time circumstances dictated otherwise.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by TRuss

I understand both points clearly. My final point was that we are not repsonsible for making the call if they race or not. There are people who are at the track and are who considered smart enough as that they get paid to make that decision. They know what is going on, they are talking to the teams and they make the call. Not us. We're just some guys sitting at home very far removed. I'd love to see them race as much as anybody, but this time circumstances dictated otherwise.

Surprising number of people here think the drivers should have gone out even if it was unnecessarily dangerous. If they were race director that would put them at great legal risk, certainly in the UK, where you must take all reasonable steps to ensure safety, and if it can be proved that it was overly dangerous, and YOU KNEW it was, then you are culpable for any accidents.

Yes, motor racing IS dangerous (I know, I have competed), but to make it unnecessarily dangerous is asking for trouble. In Canada they erred on the side of caution. Too far I agree, but to err the other way could have had catastrophic results.

And to answer a comment from way above - of course you can die in a F1 car if the circumstances are 'bad' enough. For example, the accident that killed Henry Surtees could have happened in F1. Freak, but possible, just like F3. Massa was almost killed by debris. Both in good conditions. Wet conditions make accidents more likely, so better to err on the cautious side.