[Tech Issue] Run-offs - What's the answer?

[ECW Dan Selby]

Hi guys,

I've decided to post this in here because I think it's hugely relevant to F1, as they seem to have the highest demands as far as run-offs go.

How does everyone feel about them?

I know the general consensus seems to be that there's too much of them, and not enough penalty for using them. I had a really good debate with my step-Grandad about this topic. The topic was:

Electronic penalty system Vs. "Blue/Red Zones" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_Paul_Ricard):

My argument was for the Paul Ricard style Blue/Red zones (abrassive run-off surfaces). What I love about this method is that it keeps the sport safe (and let's be honest, we do on the occasion need these huge run-offs. We saw Webber's car launch through the skies in Valencia and hit the tyre wall with tremendous force, despite the huge run-off) whilst still punishing errors. Tyres will deform quickly as they negotiate the run-off, causing strategies to fly out of the window and drivers to realise they've made a big error. This would not lead to as many safety car periods for 'beached' cars or cars stuck in muddy grass, yet would still punish drivers appropriately.

My step-grandad was for an electronic penalty system, where drivers would be allowed a certain distance of run-off, but if they went over in to an extended section of run-off, they'd be penalised X amount of time, or have to come in for a drive-through penalty. Whilst this was a nice method of eliminating the stewards, they'd still have to be roped in when it's decided that Fernando may have been 'punted' by Hamilton in to the penalty zone. Then we have incidents up for debate and more controversy than we possibly have now.

What I liked about the Red/Blue zone method is that the damage is not up for debate. If you have an incident and go off, you're tyres are damaged no matter whos fault it was. It puts it back in to the driver's hands rather than team principles to moan at Charlie Whiting and plead their case.

Now obviously the Red/Blue zones will not just erradicate the issue of incidents being 'under investigation' etc, but no method will really be complaint-proof. Like I said, what I like about it is it gives the drivers responsibility for their own actions.

I'd like to hear everyones thoughts

Cheers

Selby

[Purist]

The paved run-offs, at least at the permanent courses, are already higher-abrasion asphalt, as far as I'm aware.

Also, that tire penalty only works to the desired affect under specific conditions. That is, the tire compound would have to be adequately soft, which I'm NOT counting on. Also, the driver would have to be pushing fairly hard, and there's no guarantee that they'll be in a position where they have to do that.

On top of this, since pit stops have become a regular, and currently mandated, part of F1, if the run-off does real damage to the tires, the driver will simply pit for new rubber, and rob us of the race/battle that was going on, which from the perspective that we've been clamoring for more exciting racing in F1, produces very counterproductive results.

The two real fundamental issues to be overcome for this to possibly work as desired on a consistent basis are, apart from NOT mandating the use of multiple compounds in a race, are overcoming this strategy to simply pit when something starts going off, and second, the fact that current tires will not last all that long once they start going off. In the '80s, the tires could be going off, but they wouldn't shred themselves right away just from wear. Rosberg went 30+ laps at Detroit in 1982 on fading tires. You can't do that nowadays; you'd have a blowout at some point.

Finally, the whole judgment thing can be summed up like this. The stewards either need to grow some balls, as they took their bloody time, even on some obvious calls, or these judgments need to be made indescriminantly by an irrefutable source, like the laws of physics.

[Sodemo]

Tarmac run-off is my absolute most hated thing about F1 at the moment. I hate how some amazing tracks have been ruined by the emasculation of some amazing corners. Silverstone, Spa, Suzuka, A1 Ring, Mt Fuji have all suffered at the hands of this plague. I can almost forgive the run off at the end of long straights, however such run off around low-speed portions of track just for defy logic.

OK here are some examples; new section @ Silverstone, Bus Stop @ Spa, final section @ Mt Fuji, all of which are very low speed parts of the track, which all have massive amounts of run off. Why? The cars there are never going to be going very fast, so why the run off? It should be grass, then gravel, then tyre barrier.

When do I think tarmac run off should be used? At the end of long high speed straights (like the hairpin at Montreal). The argument against gravel, is that it would tip cars over at high speed. Frankly, the gravel would only tip a car if it digs in to deep gravel, if the gravel traps were only 5-6 inches deep, cars wouldn't dig in so much.

I posted in another thread on a similar topic, so forgive the re-post...

Originally Posted by Sodemo

[originally posted by Sodemo]

Danger is part of racing, and I think (perhaps controversially) it should be. Too many tracks are defaced in the name of F1. Look at Mt Fuji, an amazing track, ruined so that they could have F1 there for 2 years, now all of a sudden it "doesn't fit into their commercial profile" or some other corporate speak, but the track is left ruined for all other series.

They destroy a track for one weekend in the year. Its frankly distgusting. The same can be applied to Spa. A once amazing track, now is being erroded away by the safety brigade. More tarmac here, move back the barriers here. Why may I ask is there 10 metres of tarmac run off on the exit of the final part of the bus stop? That part of the track is only going to ever be negotiated at about 40-50mph, is there any need to have run off at such a low speed corner? Going back to Fuji, the same happened there, the final part is just full of low speed corners, yet they are all surrounded by masses of run off. Is it a safety issue or a keeping cars in the race issue?

Back in 1999, Neil Shanahan was killed in a Formula Ford race at Oulton Park. I was sat near the exit of Knickerbrook. The crash occurred going up Clay Hill, from what I remember it was 3 cars going up the hill side by side, and the one speared off into the armco at quite a speed. Now, frankly if a driver was killed in F1, you would expect sweeping car changes, track changes, rule changes, the works. What happened in the aftermath of Neil's death? Nothing. No car changes, no track changes, nothing. There lies the difference between F1 safety and "normal motorsport" safety.

[originally posted by Sodemo]

[chillibowl]

they should use whatever enhances the safety of the drivers. but that statement is different than saying drivers should be allowed to use run off as a method of gaining track position (like Kimi did at Spa a few years back) or minimizing the effects of a mistake (not getting stuck in the gravel). this for me is not a question of aesthetics but about maximizing safety without compromising the racing.

i like the idea of a time penalty based on spending to much time in a run off area. well actually i like the idea of an automatic DQ if you put 4 wheels off but as that is not likely to happen the time penalty is an acceptable compromise.

actually i think this can also have a knock on effect of making races less predictable and as such less processional. its kind of like a reintroduction of reliability issues which used to plague an F1 teams before they all decided to spend 300+million a year. this is the pinnacle and perfection is the goal so why not have a system of penalties which reflect that mentality. the added benefit for me is that we can force drivers to the limit without creating any additional safety risks.

[Joe Taylor]

I've always been in favour of 5 metres or so of grass followed by abrasive tarmac. That way, if you make a minor mistake, you are punished, but if you have a serious off, you can be safely brought to a stop.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by Joe Taylor

I've always been in favour of 5 metres or so of grass followed by abrasive tarmac. That way, if you make a minor mistake, you are punished, but if you have a serious off, you can be safely brought to a stop.

I like this idea, although in some cases I would substitute the tarmac for gravel.

I think it depends largely on the corner.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Joe Taylor

I've always been in favour of 5 metres or so of grass followed by abrasive tarmac. That way, if you make a minor mistake, you are punished, but if you have a serious off, you can be safely brought to a stop.

I also quite like this idea.

Whilst I see the need for safety measures it should go well beyond F1, indeed F1 injuries are now more likely to be fixed up as I have said before, by a session with the manicurist. Such have been the advances of the safety cell and the like, it is all for F1 and seemingly not relevant for the minor and club racing levels, where sadly death is still a real risk.

I believe that whilst the run off areas are a great improvement to safety over the arenas such as the Nordschleife which really were / are dangerous for the speed of F1 cars now, particularly corner speed, I believe that a mistake should still be punished by penalty rather than by injury or death.

I think the arguments and penalties of all 4 wheels leaving the race track in say a chicane situation should be extended to include drivers who take advantage of using run off areas.

Having said that I am well aware of the protests regarding 'driver x' pushed 'driver w' into that position as I think it was Selby brought up. I guess what that says to me is that there is no easy fix. However just because the answer does not jump out in any obvious way does not mean that there is no answer, just no easy answer.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Some good points here.

I didn't realise the type of run-off they use now is actually the red/blue zone materials. Is there not any way they could make it much more abrassive??

I also fully agree with the point about needing more grass. I'm actually surprised there isn't more grass cropping up to go in with the whole 'green' image. If they can put a green ring around the tyres and feel that helps their cause then surely some rolling hills may legitimately further that...However, I feel heavy run-off is necessary at the Bus Stop, and in the new Abbey section at Silverstone.

Selby

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Joe Taylor

I've always been in favour of 5 metres or so of grass followed by abrasive tarmac. That way, if you make a minor mistake, you are punished, but if you have a serious off, you can be safely brought to a stop.

Originally Posted by dyewat808

I like this idea, although in some cases I would substitute the tarmac for gravel.

Pretty much agree, along with a kerb that they'd rather not use

I hate the fact that at Copse or Eau Rouge or Hockenheim T1 you can fling the car at the corner with gay abandon, get it completely wrong and come out with no disadvantage and sometimes even an advantage. Takes away the skill of having to get it right every time especially in qualifying. Also tarmac run off doesn't stop a car without wheels or brakes.

Whatever they do, the bit next to the track should offer diminished grip and the bit after that a significant disadvantage, even if it's an artificial system whereby if you put a wheel on it you have to come to a halt before rejoining.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Yeh I remember Massa completely making a mockery of the Hockenheim run-offs last year...

Selby

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

Yeh I remember Massa completely making a mockery of the Hockenheim run-offs last year...

Selby

I'm glad someone remembered something else about that race.

The 5 or so metres of grass/slippery material and then tarmac sounds like a good idea.

It can't be right that all these cars going off the circuit are still able to not lose much time getting back on again. I would prefer drivers to be punished out on track, rather than in the stewards office.

[ptclaus98]

Why not gravel followed by tarmac?


In the event of an major off, the car would be slowed by the gravel, or even if it flips, would most likely land in the tarmac and not dig in. If the event of a wet weather off, the car would be slowed much more efficiently before hitting the tarmac. If you run a bit too wide, the car could potentially be out, although they would most likely need a SC.

[Marbot]

If you get a car stuck in gravel or if it's disabled in some way, it tends to bring out the yellow flags or, worse still, the safety car! Which is what the FIA were trying to avoid in the first place IIRC. It also didn't like (or Bernie didn't like) the fact that major players were putting themselves out of races for what seemed like minor errors of judgement.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Woolley

Pretty much agree, along with a kerb that they'd rather not use

I hate the fact that at Copse or Eau Rouge or Hockenheim T1 you can fling the car at the corner with gay abandon, get it completely wrong and come out with no disadvantage and sometimes even an advantage. Takes away the skill of having to get it right every time especially in qualifying. Also tarmac run off doesn't stop a car without wheels or brakes.

Whatever they do, the bit next to the track should offer diminished grip and the bit after that a significant disadvantage, even if it's an artificial system whereby if you put a wheel on it you have to come to a halt before rejoining.

I really hate the non-kerbs that we have nowadays. I can appreciate the problems that big kerbs cause to motorcyclists, but something must be done. Perhaps it would require bolt-in kerbs for cars that could be removed for motor bikes. Whatever, we need to return to a situation where the inner edge of the kerb defines the limits of the track, not the outer edge, or somewhere way beyond that.

All the recent variations of run-off areas have their disadvantages:
Tarmac: Doesn't work on a wheel-less or brake-less car. Allows drivers to take advantage. Downright ugly.
Gravel: Causes retirements and safety cars for very minor incidents. Doesn't always work if it becomes compacted. Can cause cars to roll. Gravel can get thrown onto the track.
Grass: insufficient friction.

What about lightweight moveable barriers made of tyres (or a hi-tech alternative)? Imagine a very long string of tyres lying around the outside of a corner, a few feet from the track edge, and with grass in between. As a car starts to push the barrier back, it has to move more and more barrier (weight) and the resistance increases. Further back there could be a second layer and perhaps a third to progressively slow a car. Thus a minor off will have a minor impact with the barrier and minor damage. A major off will generate much more force to control the crashing car. This system would be appropriate for all types of racing car, whether clubbie saloons, FFs, historics, or F1, and the damage issue would be particularly important in the lower formulae.

Finally, reducing downforce dramatically would reduce the size of run-off needed. A modern F1 car turns into a corner at a speed that it assumes it will go round at about 4g. When the car is going sideways or backwards all downforce is lost and it will be lucky to be retarded at 1g. Hence a lot of space is required to stop. If the car was expecting to corner at 2g, the entry speed would be much slower, but going sideways or backwards the car would still generate the same retardation. Hence it will stop sooner.

[Purist]

Not quite true there. Less downforce means less drag, which could easily mean speeds on the straights going into the corners are actually higher. Also, the way the rules are written, top-end speed has far more to explicitly do with the size of the run-offs than does the cornering speed. In other words, the rules on tracks actually encourage higher downforce/higher drag cars.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Purist

Not quite true there. Less downforce means less drag, which could easily mean speeds on the straights going into the corners are actually higher. Also, the way the rules are written, top-end speed has far more to explicitly do with the size of the run-offs than does the cornering speed. In other words, the rules on tracks actually encourage higher downforce/higher drag cars.

If you know that the car is going to corner at reduced speed, you will have to brake accordingly. Maybe from a higher speed, but far earlier than with a car with more downforce.

Have a look at how much earlier the MotoGP guys brake, and usually they reach a higher top speed than F1 cars do when they use the same circuits. And the MotoGP guys actually look like they're braking from 200+mph!

[Purist]

I know that, but it doesn't matter where the braking point is in terms of what the rules say is required; the issue is how fast the vehicle is going at that terminal velocity, and thus how large you must make the run-offs based on that.

Also, if the cars were topping out at 212-217mph at Mugello, like the bikes do, that would equate to 3-4 times the energy (depending on the mass of the car) needing to be dissipated in the run-off. So, in all likelihood, the demands of the cars are going to dictate the absolute size of the run-offs anyway.

[saddelbags]

why are the cars not made to run on the cicuit as it is and not change the circuit to suit the cars if a motor manufacture made a car unsuitabel for the roads I dont think they would change the roads

[Marbot]

Good point!

[Purist]

The trouble is that "safety" is a moving target, and the simple answer is that ALL categories of cars would then be demanded, by the FIA, to be dramatically slower than they are now, if run-offs were not made larger.

And why would "ALL" other categories have to be slowed down you may ask? That is simple; FOM/Bernie will NEVER allow F1 cars to look "slow", especially compared to other categories of circuit racing cars.

Also, which is the bigger immovable object? In the case of public roads, the auto manufacturers can do little when it's a federal government that builds and maintains the public roads, and sets the laws regarding what can go on those roads. The roles are reversed when a track owner/event promoter/organizer is trying to fight off the FIA and/or big auto manufacturers.

[Woolley]

Of course, you can just stick walls right next to the track. It must be safe, otherwise they wouldn't go to new street circuits... Makes an utter mockery of the run-off requirements imposed on permanent circuits.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Woolley

Of course, you can just stick walls right next to the track. It must be safe, otherwise they wouldn't go to new street circuits... Makes an utter mockery of the run-off requirements imposed on permanent circuits.

Truth accepted.

[ECW Dan Selby]

It's true.

And it gives some food for thought, doesn't it?

If F1 wants to become more 'Road Relevant', why not use more street tracks that are in close proximities to the barriers? Because that's real life afterall. If they can build cars that withstand impact in close-quatres akin to real life, then that'd be a genuine achievement and a huge step forward for road cars.

Plus, it'd punish some mistakes

It's definitely some food for thought, and i'd be interested to hear other's opinions.

Selby

[cerdic]

Good point. It would also bring back some of the unpredictabilty if drivers made the occasional mistake and whacked a wall!

[Marbot]

Bernie wanted less chance of safety cars being used, which might then interfere with broadcasters schedules. This is one of the reasons why we have more run-off and less barriers.

Bernie also wanted small mistakes, like running slightly wide on corners etc, to be less likely to put out a front runner.

It's all for the 'show' don't ya know!