Safety Car

[Pingguest]

This year's Japanese Grand Prix was started behind the Safety Car, which led the field for the first 18 laps. During that period I came to the conclusion that the Safety Car should be abolished for the normal cases in which it could be deployed.

As the Safety Car is relatively new, in my opinion it doesn't belong in Grand Prix racing. The deployment of the Safety Car is unfair to the race leader, as he loses his gap to the others and all his hard work is wasted. The new regulations make it even worse: the pit lane remains closed until all drivers are lined up behind the Safety Car.

That's why I think the Safety Car should be abolished and the FIA should look for alternatives. The best alternative in my opinion is to stop the race in case of bad weather or an accident and separate the event in two parts. As soon the conditions are fine, a restart should take place. To spare the clutches a rolling restart is possibly the best option. The results of both parts should then be aggregated. The two hours limit could still be enforced: if the leader hasn't driven 75% or more of the original race distance at the two hour point, only half of the points should be awarded.

What's your opinion on this one?

[jab]

I do think they use it today for more than they used to. Whether that's good or not, I don't know

But then today accidents are generally bigger than they used to be because drivers make few errors and it would need to be big to get across the usually huge run-off areas to actually hit the wall

[Alan Raine]

The reason for starting behind the safety car is TV.

The reason for not stopping races is TV.

TV timetables dictate what happens unless it is really, really serious.

It appears that it's not been really, really serious yet!

[nameless]

its difficult to see how stopping and restarting the race is much fairer on the race leader - at least behind the safety car he can deploy certain tactics to retain his lead on the restart, just another skill to put in the repertoire.
Aggregate races are confusing for all involved, can comprimise a drivers desire to overtake or battle with the cars around whilst driving to a clock.

Also are you honestly saying you would rather see races stopped and started (with the inevitable delays) as opposed to a few laps driving slowly around the safety car?

[ljakse]

If I have to choose, I'd say SC is better than restarts...

However, I believe that it's all Alonso's fault.
Ever since he smashed that Jag (I believe it was Webber) in '04(?) we are doomed with SC.

[Ralf's Girl]

I'd prefer to see the safety car than the race stopped - the safety car can still throw up points of interest in a race, with pitstops, changes to strategies etc. I also fail to see the point about the safety car disadvantaging the race leader - wouldn't stopping and then restarting the race be more of a disadvantage?

[Kirk]

I can’t see the SC ever going away, however, it brings me back to that old argument: Upgrade the SC to a car that can keep a reasonable F1 pace. As recently witnessed, the current Benz is simply too slow in adverse weather and can compromise driver safety.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Kirk

it brings me back to that old argument: Upgrade the SC to a car that can keep a reasonable F1 pace. As recently witnessed, the current Benz is simply too slow in adverse weather and can compromise driver safety.

I agree. We need an SC that is much faster in bad weather. Something with 4WD, preferably ... a Veyron?

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Kirk

As recently witnessed, the current Benz is simply too slow in adverse weather and can compromise driver safety.

How does it compromise driver safety? The purpose of the safety car is to form all the cars into a compact 'train' & to slow them down so as to create a reasonably long gap for incidents to be cleared safely. Why is what you perceive as too low a speed any more dangerous than something approaching racing speed?

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

How does it compromise driver safety? The purpose of the safety car is to form all the cars into a compact 'train' & to slow them down so as to create a reasonably long gap for incidents to be cleared safely. Why is what you perceive as too low a speed any more dangerous than something approaching racing speed?

...which is why it's called the Safety Car.

[Ralf's Girl]

The Mercedes SC is pretty nippy - it keeps a decent pace up in the event of a dry weather safety car incident. The point of it in the wet is to slow the cars down and prevent them from going so fast as to be dangerous, so I'm not sure why a faster safety car would be needed.

[nycuk]

The SC option isn't ideal but it's far better that restarts and aggregates. When was the last 'aggregate' GP? Last one I can remember is Suzuka '94 - has there been one since?

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Ralf's Girl

The Mercedes SC is pretty nippy - it keeps a decent pace up in the event of a dry weather safety car incident. The point of it in the wet is to slow the cars down and prevent them from going so fast as to be dangerous, so I'm not sure why a faster safety car would be needed.

When a SC is employed in a given race, safety issues arise directly as a result of the SC not being fast enough.

The F1 drivers are not provided enough speed to keep their tyres warm.. In an effort to compensate there often is excessive swerving and brake testing going on which in itself can be unsafe. When the race resumes the driver is running on cold tyres, and it is never desirable to literally have an entire race field running under those conditions.

In wet conditions this condition is exacerbated by the SC being even slower than normal. There is always a chance of an incident like what happened with Vettel this year.

Yes, the SC is meant to slow the field but a real F1 SC would at least allow the lap before the restart to be almost up to racing speed, hence safer.

[BootsOntheSide]

Using one safety car for the dry and one for the wet is one option, but they would have to both be from the same brand - who would spend big money to show that their prestigious car isn't adequately fast in the wet?

I like the safety car overall, because the aggregate races were far too confusing. Then again, the 'take-a-penalty-or-run-out-of-fuel' system we saw in Canada is unfair and needs to be fixed - it could change the winner of this year's title. Maybe have teams declare to the FIA that they will be pitting a particular car on this lap, and only allow those cars to pit?

Having to make adjustments for TV schedules isn't ideal, but we'd soon be complaining if F1 went back to not having live coverage of every race. In countries were it's a marginal sport, a lot of coverage could be lost.

[kipper]

Originally Posted by Kirk

When a SC is employed in a given race, safety issues arise directly as a result of the SC not being fast enough.

The F1 drivers are not provided enough speed to keep their tyres warm.. In an effort to compensate there often is excessive swerving and brake testing going on which in itself can be unsafe. When the race resumes the driver is running on cold tyres, and it is never desirable to literally have an entire race field running under those conditions.

Assuming that F1 cars need to run at something close to race pace in order to keep temperature in the tyres, then anything below that level could create those problems. In which case the F1 cars when behind the safety car would need to near be race pace, which is probably not conducive to overall safety levels.

Originally Posted by Kirk

Yes, the SC is meant to slow the field but a real F1 SC would at least allow the lap before the restart to be almost up to racing speed, hence safer.

For that to be the case, one would need a production car that can meet F1 speeds, which are few and far between. Also, a Safety Car needs to be able to run for long periods of times (e.g. in Japan), with almost bullet proof reliabilty, so could perhaps prohibit more 'exotic' cars, such as a Bugatti Veyron.

[Marbot]

With the disappearance of traction control for next season I feel that we're going to be seeing an awful lot more of Bernd Maylander and his silver AMG Mercedes.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

With the disappearance of traction control for next season I feel that we're going to be seeing an awful lot more of Bernd Maylander and his silver AMG Mercedes.

Admins, next year could we add Mr Mayländer to the driver of the race polls, he (seriously) deserved it at Fuji

On the choice of car - IMO, the Safety Car should be from a neutral manufacturer (although it makes no real difference) - that's why I suggested a Veyron as it is very fast, 4WD and also would be VWAG. The other option would be a Lambo of some kind... a souped up family car isn't really needed, it doesn't have to carry much stuff.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

The other option would be a Lambo of some kind...

The Lambo MurkyLager *spelling* would fit the bill admirably.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Ralf's Girl

I'd prefer to see the safety car than the race stopped - the safety car can still throw up points of interest in a race, with pitstops, changes to strategies etc. I also fail to see the point about the safety car disadvantaging the race leader - wouldn't stopping and then restarting the race be more of a disadvantage?

No. Just look at a possible situation with the current rules:
Driver X has a 30 seconds lead on Driver Y. The Safety Car goes out and Driver X loses his 30 seconds gap to Driver Y and is not allowed to do a pit stop until all cars are lined up behind the Safety Car.

In the my proposed situation this would happen:
Driver X has a 30 seconds lead on Driver Y. The race is stopped. Driver Y takes the lead after the restarts and 'wins' the second heat by 29 seconds. In that case Driver X has won the Grand Prix by 1 second.

The second situation sounds more fair to me, as Driver X's hard work isn't wasted due the regulations.

[Bleu]

Certainly I think that safety car is sensible option for red flag in most cases. Some big accidents, for example in last 10 years Kubica at Montreal, Ralf at Indy, Sato/Heidfeld at A1 and two crashes leading to death of marshal are kind of incidents where I would have liked to see red flag. Mostly because they took about 10% of race distance, which I feel should be the maximum. Over 25% at Fuji was almost joke.

To think about pitting rule, my proposal would be that each team would have a small tank of fuel (between 3 and 5 litres) which they could fill into the car during closed pits. They would then pit again when the pits are opened. That way they would not lose too much time compared to those who do their planned pitstops once pit lane has been opened. 10-second stop/go takes about 25 seconds anyway.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by ljakse

If I have to choose, I'd say SC is better than restarts...

However, I believe that it's all Alonso's fault.
Ever since he smashed that Jag (I believe it was Webber) in '04(?) we are doomed with SC.

Hmmm, the safety car was used in the '02 Australian GP, which, iirc, Fernando didn't take part in

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

No. Just look at a possible situation with the current rules:
Driver X has a 30 seconds lead on Driver Y. The Safety Car goes out and Driver X loses his 30 seconds gap to Driver Y and is not allowed to do a pit stop until all cars are lined up behind the Safety Car.

In the my proposed situation this would happen:
Driver X has a 30 seconds lead on Driver Y. The race is stopped. Driver Y takes the lead after the restarts and 'wins' the second heat by 29 seconds. In that case Driver X has won the Grand Prix by 1 second.

The second situation sounds more fair to me, as Driver X's hard work isn't wasted due the regulations.

Why not simply go back to allowing pitstops before the cars have formed up? Besides, if a driver is 30 seconds ahead but has made one extra pitstop, their real lead is negligable.

[Ralf's Girl]

Originally Posted by Kirk

In wet conditions this condition is exacerbated by the SC being even slower than normal. There is always a chance of an incident like what happened with Vettel this year.

Did Hamilton get exonerated in favour of blaming the safety car for that incident?

Originally Posted by Kirk

Yes, the SC is meant to slow the field but a real F1 SC would at least allow the lap before the restart to be almost up to racing speed, hence safer.

Why are racing speeds safer in conditions such as those in Fuji? I don't think any drivers want to do racing speeds in torrential rain - if we can see accidents at low speed in those conditions then there's no reason to assume we wouldn't see worse ones at high speed.

[Kirk]

Perhaps you missed the race, but anyone that watched the race, it was quite obvious that LH was not comfortable driving that slowly and more than once came very close to the SC. Too close for comfort, if you ask me.. And it had a snowball effect, with Webber too close to LH at times etc....


And cold tyre restarts directlly after SC conditions, especially in wet weather, is a problem that should not be ignored, imo.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Ralf's Girl

Why are racing speeds safer in conditions such as those in Fuji? I don't think any drivers want to do racing speeds in torrential rain - if we can see accidents at low speed in those conditions then there's no reason to assume we wouldn't see worse ones at high speed.

You're missing the point.