The most artificial thing in F1 is safety cars

[Born Racer]

We saw Webber finishing seventh after being minutes behind. If a driver's just stopped and the safety car comes out, "harsh luck sunshine". I'm surprised there isn't more feeling against this race-spoiling decider.

It's far too big a factor. For safety, the red flag works better (or would if they could speed up the starting procedure). You could restart cars at timed intervals so the drivers are separated by the times they were before.

The safety car is clearly not the best solution. It also wastes laps.

[bravo]

With all the GPS kit onboard they could easily identify the gaps behind the leader at the time of the safety car or red flag, and 'unlock' a cars performance based on gap to the leader as they go green.

[beau1]

I think the principle of the safety car is fine, the problem I have with it is that is that it has now become part of the show.

The safety car served its function much better when lapped cars stayed where the were. It annoys me now how lapped cars are released as it is surely more dangerous having cars going at various speeds and it also means the safety car remains on track for longer.

[Knowlesy]

Safety cars are fine. The regulations that have been put into place for safety car periods are retarded.

All ties into the DRS/Pirelli-addled show though.

[Tourer]

Safety Cars are not remotely artificial - they are used to control the field if needed. DRS in specific zones only, Kers for a certain amount of seconds per lap, Tyres that degrade hyper fast, parc ferme rules between Q and race, split Q sessions - these are WAY more artificial than safety cars.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Safety Cars are not remotely artificial - they are used to control the field if needed. DRS in specific zones only, Kers for a certain amount of seconds per lap, Tyres that degrade hyper fast, parc ferme rules between Q and race, split Q sessions - these are WAY more artificial than safety cars.

+1

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

We saw Webber finishing seventh after being minutes behind. If a driver's just stopped and the safety car comes out, "harsh luck sunshine". I'm surprised there isn't more feeling against this race-spoiling decider.

It's far too big a factor. For safety, the red flag works better (or would if they could speed up the starting procedure). You could restart cars at timed intervals so the drivers are separated by the times they were before.

The safety car is clearly not the best solution. It also wastes laps.

Exactly. I don't know about the 'most' artificial thing but if you go a lap behind, either through slowness, stupidity or bad luck you should stay there unless you've got the clear speed to repass the leader. Waiting around while usually a bunch of nobodies gets their lap back is dumb.

[JimW]

Compared with PIT STOPS, tyres designed not to last, Kers, DRS and telemetry, then safety cars are sensible and proportionate.

Jim

[johngee]

How true. To quote Mario Andretti about safety cars, many years ago "You win some - you lose some"

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

You could restart cars at timed intervals so the drivers are separated by the times they were before.

What usually happens during a safety car period is that some drivers will dive into the pits for a new set of tyres and sometimes that happens even before it is recognised that the safety car is actually needed out on track. So it's going to be extremely difficult for any pre-safety car gaps to be maintained with regard to who should go where in light of the fact that some have new tyres and others don't.

You could make it possible that all drivers must pit for tyres, but some won't have tyres to pit for, nor do they necessarily need new tyres having only pitted for them three laps before the safety car came out.

You may also remember the times when the pits were closed during a safety car period? That could work now, since it wouldn't be possible for drivers to run out of fuel because the safety car period prevented them from returning to the pits.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Safety Cars are not remotely artificial - they are used to control the field if needed. DRS in specific zones only, Kers for a certain amount of seconds per lap, Tyres that degrade hyper fast, parc ferme rules between Q and race, split Q sessions - these are WAY more artificial than safety cars.

I don't understand your logic. Safety cars massively affect results. DRS and KERS can but they have a small effect at each time they are used, whereas safety cars distort potential results by a long way.

DRS and KERS is also the same for everyone, whereas you can be screwed by the safety car.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

DRS and KERS is also the same for everyone, whereas you can be screwed by the safety car.

Agreed. Which is why I don't like there to be too long a period of time elapsing between there needing to be a safety car and when one is actually deployed. I'm not saying that anyone would rig the race result by figuring out which team is most likely going to benefit from a safety car, but I would like there to be no time at all in which to even think about it. DRS, KERS and tyres, on the other hand, could never give you that sort of advantage.

[Cougar]

One thing I remember from the race is that when Webber got released through the field.. his lap catching up to the back of the pack was only .2 off the fastest lap at the time. Also the track was cleared by that time and I think we got at least one extra lap waiting for him to catch back up.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I don't understand your logic. Safety cars massively affect results. DRS and KERS can but they have a small effect at each time they are used, whereas safety cars distort potential results by a long way.

DRS and KERS is also the same for everyone, whereas you can be screwed by the safety car.

It's not a question of how much results are affected but what is "most artificial" - SC use is done for a real reason, to bring the field under control and suspend racing due to a safety issue of one kind or another.

If you want to look at what things can impact a race result more, then I agree that SC can do that - but that isn't the subject of this thread - this thread is about what is the most artificial thing in F1, not what thing has the biggest affect on a race result.

DRS, KERS and the other items I mentioned are very artificial - KERS is artificial as they are only permitted to use so many seconds per lap, if it was available to use at any time subject only to each team's capacity to generate power in the system, that would not be artificial but I take your point that it's the same for everyone - doesn't make it less artificial though. DRS is most definitely not the same for everyone - car in front doesn't get to use it, so it is very artificial in the way it produces passing moves.

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Safety Cars are not remotely artificial - they are used to control the field if needed. DRS in specific zones only, Kers for a certain amount of seconds per lap, Tyres that degrade hyper fast, parc ferme rules between Q and race, split Q sessions - these are WAY more artificial than safety cars.

How are split Q sessions and parc ferme regulations artificial? The former is just another form of sport and a type of qualifying format. The latter is a simply a motor racing regulation.

I'd say DRS and reverse grids are what you refer to as "artificial", the rest are just aspects of motorsport. KERS and tyres are the same for everyone, it's just another aspect of the sport.

Originally Posted by Tourer

KERS is artificial as they are only permitted to use so many seconds per lap, if it was available to use at any time subject only to each team's capacity to generate power in the system, that would not be artificial but I take your point that it's the same for everyone - doesn't make it less artificial though.

If you can justify the classic safety car because of safety, you can justify KERS for it's green image and improvement of fuel economy. It's limited to reduce costs and so every one has the same/similar benefit from KERS. If it was unlimited, there would be a KERS arms race as a more efficient KERS system would become a huge advantage in F1. The smaller teams would fall further off the pace.

KERS keeps F1 road relevant and it's limited for good reason, I see no problem there.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Beryl

How are split Q sessions and parc ferme regulations artificial? The former is just another form of sport and a type of qualifying format. The latter is a simply a motor racing regulation.

I'd say DRS and reverse grids are what you refer to as "artificial", the rest are just aspects of motorsport. KERS and tyres are the same for everyone, it's just another aspect of the sport.
If you can justify the classic safety car because of safety, you can justify KERS for it's green image and improvement of fuel economy. It's limited to reduce costs and so every one has the same/similar benefit from KERS. If it was unlimited, there would be a KERS arms race as a more efficient KERS system would become a huge advantage in F1. The smaller teams would fall further off the pace.

KERS keeps F1 road relevant and it's limited for good reason, I see no problem there.

The split Q sessions and parc ferme the way it operates now combine to be artificial - the teams can't change springs, ratios etc on the cars so Q is often compromised artificially; teams choose to sit out Q to improve their race opportunities - two of them did this as recently as Germany. Sure, they are rules of the sport but very artificial ones, which is of course what we're discussing here.

I'm fine with KERS per se, it's the artificial restriction of the time it can operate per lap that is well, artificial. The best way to have real road relevance would be to have unlimited KERS as that would push teams to develop better and more cutting edge systems, which could then flow back into the road car world in a much better way, provide commercial opportunity for teams and go back to "racing improving the breed".

Take your point on cost containment but the time restriction is most definitely artificial - it effectively produces a "push to pass" or "push to defend" system that ends up with drivers taking a punt to use it to for example keep a car behind just enough to avoid DRS. All good, that's a skill but one that the punters can't see and a very artificial form of racing.

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The split Q sessions and parc ferme the way it operates now combine to be artificial - the teams can't change springs, ratios etc on the cars so Q is often compromised artificially; teams choose to sit out Q to improve their race opportunities - two of them did this as recently as Germany. Sure, they are rules of the sport but very artificial ones, which is of course what we're discussing here.

I'm fine with KERS per se, it's the artificial restriction of the time it can operate per lap that is well, artificial. The best way to have real road relevance would be to have unlimited KERS as that would push teams to develop better and more cutting edge systems, which could then flow back into the road car world in a much better way, provide commercial opportunity for teams and go back to "racing improving the breed".

Take your point on cost containment but the time restriction is most definitely artificial - it effectively produces a "push to pass" or "push to defend" system that ends up with drivers taking a punt to use it to for example keep a car behind just enough to avoid DRS. All good, that's a skill but one that the punters can't see and a very artificial form of racing.

I really don't get what you are getting at. By your definition of artificial racing, there's no such thing as non-artificial pro racing anymore. None at all.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Beryl

I really don't get what you are getting at. By your definition of artificial racing, there's no such thing as non-artificial pro racing anymore. None at all.

It is a fine line I guess - my original point is that safety cars really aren't particularly artificial, they're used for real reasons (most of the time) and there is a genuine need to control the field (rather than red-flagging and restarting the race which is what happened prior to the safety car system). In my view, the other items I listed are much more artificial than safety cars.

To me, F1 (teams and FIA) brought in items such as DRS, Kers with time limits, split Q combined with new parc ferme structure as artificial means to spice up a Grand Prix weekend, rather than grasping the nettle and evolving the sporting and technical regulations in a more genuine way to achieve a better competition.

You are right that they are sporting regs, I simply have said that in my view, they are more artificial than safety cars - and the whole point of this thread is that safety cars are the most artificial thing in F1 but I don't believe that to be the case.

[Beryl]

I can only agree that DRS is artificial and unneeded.

KERS is limited for the very important reasons I highlighted earlier. If KERS was unlimited, Ferrari wouldn't bat an eye to plunging 100 million euros into developing their system. The sport would eventually kill itself. Sauber is struggling as it is, F1 does not need a KERS war right now. Or probably ever.

As for the rest, it's all just there to make the racing better, just like every other racing series does on this planet. The knock-out qualifying is a very entertaining system, the best that has ever been in F1. And I still don't understand how it's artificial. What makes a single session or single lap runs more natural than knock-out qualifying? It's just another form of qualifying, no more or less natural than any other. Parc ferme gives overworked mechanics time off (and makes things more interesting during mixed-condition weekends),and though perhaps it is unneeded, it isn't taking away much from F1 either. The tires are now made fragile to make the racing interesting. It's a welcome change from the Bridgestone days where the tires were practically rocks and hardly wore out. Now it creates more overtaking and strategy is more variable. Good. And since all tires wear out too, it's hardly "artificial". Tire wear is a spectrum and the current tires are near one end of it, but it's still on that spectrum.

But safety cars? The FIA could use the same system they use in Dubai, where during caution periods a speed limiter is activated on all cars. Or something else. The safety car is a natural thing, but it affects the racing much much more than anything "artificial". In Germany, the safety car gave big opportunities to Kimi and Webber that they otherwise would not have had. The "artificial" elements are the same for everyone, so they become "natural" in a way. A safety car stands out unnaturally because of how drastically it can alter a race.

[Marbot]

I'm reasonably happy that 2014 will see things like KERS (ERS-K, as it will be known then) are given more freedom with regard to power output and length of time in which they can be deployed during a single lap. I don't think that energy recovery systems are artificial in any way.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Beryl

I can only agree that DRS is artificial and unneeded.
As for the rest, it's all just there to make the racing better, just like every other racing series does on this planet.

But safety cars? The FIA could use the same system they use in Dubai, where during caution periods a speed limiter is activated on all cars. Or something else. The safety car is a natural thing, but it affects the racing much much more than anything "artificial". In Germany, the safety car gave big opportunities to Kimi and Webber that they otherwise would not have had. The "artificial" elements are the same for everyone, so they become "natural" in a way. A safety car stands out unnaturally because of how drastically it can alter a race.

As I said, I agree that the measures discussed are there to make racing better, agree with them or not. It's a question of how artificial they are and in my view they are but I take your point.

Agree completely that the sc can impact the race significantly - I don't agree with you that the "Dubai solution" would necessarily be the answer for F1 but that's another discussion - with a lot of detail in it. The point of this thread is not about what impacts the race more but what is most artificial and in my view, the safety car is not the most artificial thing in F1 and is less artificial than the items you and I have been discussing.

Originally Posted by Marbot

I'm reasonably happy that 2014 will see things like KERS (ERS-K, as it will be known then) are given more freedom with regard to power output and length of time in which they can be deployed during a single lap. I don't think that energy recovery systems are artificial in any way.

I agree, it's the restriction on the amount of time it can be used as a power source per lap that I consider to be artificial.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I agree, it's the restriction on the amount of time it can be used as a power source per lap that I consider to be artificial.

There will still be a limit, but that limit will be much more difficult to achieve.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Marbot

There will still be a limit, but that limit will be much more difficult to achieve.

Now that sounds much more like the technical challenge that is part of F1 and is a good thing.

[Scooter185]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The split Q sessions and parc ferme the way it operates now combine to be artificial - the teams can't change springs, ratios etc on the cars so Q is often compromised artificially; teams choose to sit out Q to improve their race opportunities - two of them did this as recently as Germany. Sure, they are rules of the sport but very artificial ones, which is of course what we're discussing here.

I'm fine with KERS per se, it's the artificial restriction of the time it can operate per lap that is well, artificial. The best way to have real road relevance would be to have unlimited KERS as that would push teams to develop better and more cutting edge systems, which could then flow back into the road car world in a much better way, provide commercial opportunity for teams and go back to "racing improving the breed".

Take your point on cost containment but the time restriction is most definitely artificial - it effectively produces a "push to pass" or "push to defend" system that ends up with drivers taking a punt to use it to for example keep a car behind just enough to avoid DRS. All good, that's a skill but one that the punters can't see and a very artificial form of racing.

Why does F1 need to have road relevance? That should be what sports car racing is for, and LMP1 is quickly becoming the test bed for road relevant tech.

[JeremySmith]

I don't believe that F1 is, or will be in the future road relevant at all, or needs to be for that matter ...