[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The GPDA proposing indeed something similar in the form of "information laps":

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...aces/10383905/

Interesting idea. I think it can work. Right now they are in a position of having to be overly cautious as they can't gauge when it transitions over from not workable to workable conditions. The next problem will be how to determine when it's OK to do these "information laps". But I think its an idea worth exploring.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Just one little thought about artificially drying the track. If this was to happen, but then someone went off because 'that' piece of track wasn't as dry as the rest of it, could that open up a can of worms as to who whoever it was who should take responsibility for that?

but surely this risk also exists on a naturally drying track?

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I'm not sure if the FIA will attempt many standing starts any more in these conditions. The rolling starts behind the safety car have proven to be much more successful/safe.

personally i dont like seeing F1 cars relegated to track drying duties but i also can not deny a rolling start behind the SC as the safest (and currently quickest?) way to get it back to proper racing conditions.

to Viva's early point, i suppose any way you cut it there is going to be risk and issues of liability and you really cant blame anyone for not being the one who has to take the blame.

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The GPDA proposing indeed something similar in the form of "information laps"

i do like that he is classifying them as 'information laps' which i presume means then those laps would not count as race laps.

seems a very practical and cost effective approach while allowing for a full race distance event to still occur.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but surely this risk also exists on a naturally drying track?

The risk does still exist, but it's the culpability issue I was thinking of (and the potential social media explosion about [insert favourite drivers name here] crashing because of the incompetent track drying...

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Interesting idea. I think it can work. Right now they are in a position of having to be overly cautious as they can't gauge when it transitions over from not workable to workable conditions. The next problem will be how to determine when it's OK to do these "information laps". But I think its an idea worth exploring.

Richard

I think those laps behind the safety car can have two functions:


1 Allow the drivers to gauge the track conditions without the pressure of racing but rather the controlled lower pace of the SC.
2 Dry the track by having 20 very expensive vacuum cleaners run over them (this only makes sense if the weather forecast allows the track to actually dry).



Personally I very much doubt that with the current generation of cars with the amounts and type of spray, it is at all possible to do a safe standing start in anything on the wrong side of intermediate tire conditions.


I think this image from the article illustrates it nicely:




I complete white wall after just the first two cars passed (while the SC itself spray up barely anything). Albon described it as having to ping pong between the white lines because he could not see anything. That is not racing and it's certainly not safe.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

personally i dont like seeing F1 cars relegated to track drying duties but i also can not deny a rolling start behind the SC as the safest (and currently quickest?) way to get it back to proper racing conditions.

i do like that he is classifying them as 'information laps' which i presume means then those laps would not count as race laps.

seems a very practical and cost effective approach while allowing for a full race distance event to still occur.

The problem with them not counting as racing laps is that you run into fuel problems if you don't stop to refuel the car. Personally I don't think it is a good idea to just do some scout laps behind the SC then suspending everything again, refuel and if it still rains allow the drying you have just achieved by having the cars on track to be undone because you put them in the pit again.


What I would propose (for the current generation of cars) is that when conditions are too wet to have a standing cars but the forecast is favourable we will have a rolling start behind the SC until the track is dry enough so there is an acceptable risk for aquaplanning and visibility is acceptable and the then the SC goes in and the race just commences.


So only postpone the start if the forecast is such that you expect more rains is coming than you can get off the track by running the cars. And you could even start the running behind the SC 15min before official race start (with the SC going in after the official race start time) if that allows you to use a window of opportunity in the weather.


I rather have a slightly shorter race, than a race that is delayed, started then suspended again and then restarted. For me that is pretty off putting.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

The GPDA proposing indeed something similar in the form of "information laps":

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...aces/10383905/

That would probably help a lot. As Wurz points out the SC isn't comparable to what F1 cars do in those conditions, so having the F1 cars test it out would make it easier to make a decision. Might have races in full wet more often

[ScotsBrutesFan]

The issue with “information laps” is fuel load … would the cars be allowed to return to the garage to be topped up to the race start fuel levels. In addition the power trains and other parts are mileage limited, if these laps are in addition to planned weekend mileage, would reams have to have extra parts… there goes the budget cap again !

[Taxi645]

A bit more on the subject:


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/t...blem/10384345/


As discussed in another thread:

And, for 2022, one critical factor that is playing its part in the wet is the switch to ground effect cars.
The underfloor venturi tunnels, and the design by F1 chiefs to minimise airflow disruption for cars behind by not having it near pursuing cars, means in the wet the spray is thrown more violently upwards – hampering visibility even more.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

The issue with “information laps” is fuel load … would the cars be allowed to return to the garage to be topped up to the race start fuel levels. In addition the power trains and other parts are mileage limited, if these laps are in addition to planned weekend mileage, would reams have to have extra parts… there goes the budget cap again !

I would assume if these laps happen after the start of the race, they would be considered race laps and teams may be happy to burn off some fuel. If they do this before the race starts, you may have to allow teams to top off fuel before the start. I also assume the number of information laps would be low enough during any weekend that overall wear due to additional mileage would be inconsequential.This assumes information laps are to gather data, not to dry the track.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

I like what the GPDA have proposed, particularly having two cars go out behind the SC, to get information laps. So in order to avoid fuel usage and mileage issues for power trains, etc,. why not have a designated information team?

The two drivers could be selected from those F1 drivers who don't have a current contract with a team and the cars would be from the previous season and selected from two middle ranking teams from the previous season's WCC. It could be funded through sponsorship. e,g. the Aramco Track Evaluation Team.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I like what the GPDA have proposed, particularly having two cars go out behind the SC, to get information laps. So in order to avoid fuel usage and mileage issues for power trains, etc,. why not have a designated information team?

The two drivers could be selected from those F1 drivers who don't have a current contract with a team and the cars would be from the previous season and selected from two middle ranking teams from the previous season's WCC. It could be funded through sponsorship. e,g. the Aramco Track Evaluation Team.

To use prior season cars and have potential future F1 drivers in the cars is both too expensive and not ideal from a driver experience perspective.

I think a light weight version of that might work. Modify some older open wheel spec car with appropriate aero and to use the current spec tires. Car would not need to be representatively quick or even conform to any technical regulations other than safety ones. Just replicate the pertinent characteristics tires, aero, maybe weight. It could be driven by someone like Bert Mylander or equivalent. Preferably someone with F1 wet weather experience.

But in the end, that is still a complex solution and it still only gives the opinion of one driver and not a driver in the current field in the current cars. I think the idea is to have the entire field (or have the option for the entire field) to circulate at lower speeds to see if "they" feel it is safe.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

To use prior season cars and have potential future F1 drivers in the cars is both too expensive and not ideal from a driver experience perspective.

I think a light weight version of that might work. Modify some older open wheel spec car with appropriate aero and to use the current spec tires. Car would not need to be representatively quick or even conform to any technical regulations other than safety ones. Just replicate the pertinent characteristics tires, aero, maybe weight. It could be driven by someone like Bert Mylander or equivalent. Preferably someone with F1 wet weather experience.

But in the end, that is still a complex solution and it still only gives the opinion of one driver and not a driver in the current field in the current cars. I think the idea is to have the entire field (or have the option for the entire field) to circulate at lower speeds to see if "they" feel it is safe.

Richard

I didn't say have potential future F1 drivers in the cars, I said F1 drivers who don't have a current contract with a team. This isn't about drivers gaining experience, it's about using their experience to evaluate the situation.

Would it be too expensive? This idea of information laps pertains to wet races. How many of those are there in a season? Would modifying some older open wheel spec car replicate the pertinent characteristics, tires, aero, and weight of an F1 car? The previous season's cars have been built, tires, aero and weight are a known quantity.

The only problem with having someone like Bert Mylander, is he's an SC driver not an F1 driver. Undoubtedly he is excellent in his role but could he convey what an F1 driver can?

[broadrun96]

Expense would be in maintaining the cars, guessing they become rollers at the end of the season and the engines returned to the manufacturers. And it's not like they are the cars of old where you could throw a DFV back there and everyone can keep them running in Historics racing

[chillibowl]

so back to hiring a couple of track dryers then?

run some tarp across the surfaces at least.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I didn't say have potential future F1 drivers in the cars, I said F1 drivers who don't have a current contract with a team. This isn't about drivers gaining experience, it's about using their experience to evaluate the situation.

Sorry, I misunderstood. So we are on the same page on this point.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Would it be too expensive? This idea of information laps pertains to wet races. How many of those are there in a season? Would modifying some older open wheel spec car replicate the pertinent characteristics, tires, aero, and weight of an F1 car? The previous season's cars have been built, tires, aero and weight are a known quantity.

While they are used on occasion when teams need to run a driver in a spec that is not current, they are bespoke and expensive solutions. The cost would be in the ongoing maintenance and operation.

As to frequency of usage, you would have to have them tested and ready to go each race weekend. I calculated in another thread, based upon last rolling 12 months, that they might be used about 8-10% of the time.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Sorry, I misunderstood. So we are on the same page on this point.


While they are used on occasion when teams need to run a driver in a spec that is not current, they are bespoke and expensive solutions. The cost would be in the ongoing maintenance and operation.

As to frequency of usage, you would have to have them tested and ready to go each race weekend. I calculated in another thread, based upon last rolling 12 months, that they might be used about 8-10% of the time.

Richard

Would they need to be ready for every race? Not every race will be a wet. Weather forecasting is never exact but it has got a lot better. Prior to a race weekend, race control will have some idea as to what the weather will do. Regarding testing, the idea the GPDA are putting forward is the cars follow the SC and therefore will not be going at race speed, so would they need to be tested to the same degree?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Would they need to be ready for every race? Not every race will be a wet. Weather forecasting is never exact but it has got a lot better. Prior to a race weekend, race control will have some idea as to what the weather will do. Regarding testing, the idea the GPDA are putting forward is the cars follow the SC and therefore will not be going at race speed, so would they need to be tested to the same degree?

As they move freight around the world. Do they trust they will not need it when they are deciding what to send to the next location? Given the advanced planning on logistics, there is no way they can safely make the call to not bring them, if they deem them required in event of wet weather. I believe Pirelli brings full wet and intermediate tires for all drivers for all events.

The moment they have a solution like this and it's needed, but isn't at the circuit (and ready to go at a moments notice) because the forecast from a week (or more) prior said "no rain", everyone will go nuts. So I think they would need to follow the circus everywhere it goes.

As to testing, and I assume you mean some type of special built car. I assume you mean safety requirements? Who is going to sign off on lesser safety criteria and/or testing (i.e. crash testing) requirements for car which will arguably would be used in the most unsafe conditions. Even if running at lower speeds. Nobody would sign off on that.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As they move freight around the world. Do they trust they will not need it when they are deciding what to send to the next location? Given the advanced planning on logistics, there is no way they can safely make the call to not bring them, if they deem them required in event of wet weather. I believe Pirelli brings full wet and intermediate tires for all drivers for all events.

The moment they have a solution like this and it's needed, but isn't at the circuit (and ready to go at a moments notice) because the forecast from a week (or more) prior said "no rain", everyone will go nuts. So I think they would need to follow the circus everywhere it goes.

As to testing, and I assume you mean some type of special built car. I assume you mean safety requirements? Who is going to sign off on lesser safety criteria and/or testing (i.e. crash testing) requirements for car which will arguably would be used in the most unsafe conditions. Even if running at lower speeds. Nobody would sign off on that.

Richard

As the team is to work alongside the SC, they could be brought to the track along with the SC and Medical Car. They would then follow some of the SC's pre-race procedure, which normally starts on Thursday with a track test, from 2 to 3 o’clock. There's an interesting article from motorsport.com, on FIA SC driver Bernd Maylander's race weekend.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/m...river/4788768/

However, having them follow the F1 circus when they won't be needed at every race, is going to be the sticking point.

There is no need for a special car, the previous year's car could be used, as they have already passed the crash test and won't be required to go at race speed.

If having a dedicated evaluation/information team is not viable, how else could the GPDA's proposal for having information laps, with race cars running behind the SC be implemented?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As the team is to work alongside the SC, they could be brought to the track along with the SC and Medical Car. They would then follow some of the SC's pre-race procedure, which normally starts on Thursday with a track test, from 2 to 3 o’clock. There's an interesting article from motorsport.com, on FIA SC driver Bernd Maylander's race weekend.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/m...river/4788768/

However, having them follow the F1 circus when they won't be needed at every race, is going to be the sticking point.

Thanks for the link. I will check that out. If there were to be separate cars for the information lap concept, I think it would have to mirror the SC situation. Which is you bring it everywhere as you don't really know if/when you will need them.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There is no need for a special car, the previous year's car could be used, as they have already passed the crash test and won't be required to go at race speed.

As pointed out earlier, using them would most likely be an expensive solution.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If having a dedicated evaluation/information team is not viable, how else could the GPDA's proposal for having information laps, with race cars running behind the SC be implemented?

I would need to go back and read the articles that proposes this, but I think the GPDA proposal is that the current race cars would be used. Teams would just send their cars/drivers out to do reconnaissance.

I think today we have three scenarios...

1. Conditions are bad enough that we should not race.
2. Conditions are good enough to race.
3. Conditions are questionable, but we are not sure if it is scenario #1 or #2

The problem is how much time we spend in scenario #3 and the difficulty in accurately determining if #3 is really #1 or #2.

The only tool they have is the SC. So the proposal is to put the current cars out on track and do reconnaissance. Then you have feedback from the current drivers, for the current cars in the specific conditions. And you do this without having the pressure of the flag about to go green (such as if you just make the call to go racing and end a red flag period)

As pointed out earlier there are practical concerns such as fuel loads, mileage on components. Not to mention that at some level they are still putting the cars on track in conditions that are questionable. But I think the idea has merit and the details ironed out if they want to go this path.

Richard

[VIVA GT]

The way I see it is that the full grid should go out in their current race cars to check the conditions. Maybe this should (at least) start behind the safety car, but ideally they should be allowed to run at whatever speed they want/feel safe. To compensate for wear & tear & fuelling etc. how ever many laps they run could simply be cut off the race distance which should also encourage a quick decision. Of course it will be risky, but it is down to the drivers to make sure that they drive at a speed suitable for the conditions. With a full grid of 'proper' cars the drivers and marshals can also properly assess visibility due to spray & so on too, and everyone has the same opportunities/disadvantages.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

The way I see it is that the full grid should go out in their current race cars to check the conditions. Maybe this should (at least) start behind the safety car, but ideally they should be allowed to run at whatever speed they want/feel safe. To compensate for wear & tear & fuelling etc. how ever many laps they run could simply be cut off the race distance which should also encourage a quick decision. Of course it will be risky, but it is down to the drivers to make sure that they drive at a speed suitable for the conditions. With a full grid of 'proper' cars the drivers and marshals can also properly assess visibility due to spray & so on too, and everyone has the same opportunities/disadvantages.

I have emboldened the part that I think is the big issue with this suggestion.

Imagine the championship is in the same situation as 1976. How fast would each driver think is acceptable?

[Mike Harte]

Viv, can I also add that your suggestion that the drivers are fully able to drive at a safe speed was one of the reasons highlighted by the Bianchi report as being one of the contributory factors. Even though double yellow flags were being waved, and he had previously passed the crash site on the lap before, he was A) driving too fast for the conditions, certainly in that particular area, and B) being too fast at that point to be able to stop immediately in a double yellow part of the track.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I have emboldened the part that I think is the big issue with this suggestion.

Imagine the championship is in the same situation as 1976. How fast would each driver think is acceptable?

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Viv, can I also add that your suggestion that the drivers are fully able to drive at a safe speed was one of the reasons highlighted by the Bianchi report as being one of the contributory factors. Even though double yellow flags were being waved, and he had previously passed the crash site on the lap before, he was A) driving too fast for the conditions, certainly in that particular area, and B) being too fast at that point to be able to stop immediately in a double yellow part of the track.

OK, I take on board what both of you have said, and this was one reason why I suggested that the 'information laps' should start behind the safety car but then added, (as it has already been that running behind the safety car is not ideal) but ideally they should be allowed to run at whatever speed they want/feel safe (but didn't add the caveat that this would only be allowed if it was deemed safe).
Really, if it isn't safe for them to run at whatever speed they want, or feel safe enough to run at, then it is not safe enough for them to run the race at all?

[Taxi645]

I would add to that conditions are not constant. Purely by running behind get SC they will start drying the track. If the track and hence visibility has improved enough the SC can go in and we could have a rolling start with acceptable visibility and drivers that are familiar with the conditions.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I would add to that conditions are not constant. Purely by running behind get SC they will start drying the track. If the track and hence visibility has improved enough the SC can go in and we could have a rolling start with acceptable visibility and drivers that are familiar with the conditions.

You know I'm sure the FIA would have already thought of that idea

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by S griffin

You know I'm sure the FIA would have already thought of that idea

Yes I think so too. I wouldn't be surprised that this would be the standard procedure for these sort of conditions from now on.