FIA Clarify the US GP Controversies

[Led ZeppF1]

FIA Clarify the US GP Controversies.

According to Reuters, FIA says it is satisfied that marshals and emergency medical teams handled Ralf Schumacher's crash in Sunday's U.S. Grand Prix correctly.

An FIA spokesman also justified on Wednesday the decision not to stop the race at Indianapolis.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...s&section=news

[Cougar]

I do agree with this

"The start of a race is potentially the most dangerous moment and is therefore something to be avoided if a safety car deployment can manage the situation safely and effectively which was the case at Indianapolis."

[BootsOntheSide]

Not good enough.

Saying that races should only be stopped when the track is totally blocked flies in the face of all the evidence about what can go wrong when cars hit debris. And while it's true that no one but medical personnel should touch an injured driver first, the medical team still took too long to get there, and chacnges must be made for next year.

And as for the starts being dangerous, why not use rolling restarts? This would also avoid the ridiculous Belgium 2001 situation where Fisichella was basically allowed ot gain twice from teh Benetton launch control system.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Cougar21
I do agree with this

"The start of a race is potentially the most dangerous moment and is therefore something to be avoided if a safety car deployment can manage the situation safely and effectively which was the case at Indianapolis."

Of course the starts are potentially dangerous, but this is meant to be motorRACING.Driver (and marshalls) safety is of the utmost importance though, and surely it's better (and safer) to stop the race whilst an injured driver (marshall) is attended to.

Of secondary importance, the paying fans want to see cars going wheel to wheel, not "parading" round for 10 or so laps (as we saw in Monza 2000)

[RWC]

The explanations are borderline.The fia can't afford to alienate f1 fans anymore with dumb explanations to dubious decisions.Just not good enough.Not good enough at all

Just like the 3 cars that had identical qualifying times at jerez '97.Not many believed that bernie didn't have a hand in it.
It's the same with most of the decisions the fia or it's track officials make.Too often in the past they have played favorites to increase the worth the fia world championship (most usually by favoring ferrari's chances at winning....until they overdid it,lol).They have little trust left.

[Kicking-back]

Totally disagree, RWC.

The Jerez 97 situation was proved from team telemetry.

And there's never been any serious evidence of Ferrari being favoured - however much some of us would love to call "conspiracy"

[Spudgun]

"Race control was in constant touch with the safety car and the feedback from the track was that it was quite possible to avoid the debris,"

Possible to avoid the debris at SC speeds perhaps. Shouldn't they have been more concerned about clearing it? I'd have thought it would have been even more important given the speeds and nature of the corner involved.

To me it just looks like a thin 'mightier than thou' piece to fob off the minions.

[Kicking-back]

The debris from Ralf's crash was cleared up and it didn't cause any further problems.

Therefore that feedback from race control and the safety car driver seems spot on.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by RWC


Just like the 3 cars that had identical qualifying times at jerez '97.Not many believed that bernie didn't have a hand in it.

Just how would Bernie have had a hand in this? This was a freak occurance, especially for 3 cars setting the exact time, but it happened!

Bear in mind, that the FIA (and Bernie too for that matter) were desperate for a Ferrari championship at this time, surely, had Bernie been involved, he'd have arranged it so that Michael started in front of Villeneuve, not behind!

[EvilPumpkin]

Originally posted by Mr V
and surely it's better (and safer) to stop the race whilst an injured driver (marshall) is attended to.

They never even stopped races when marshals were dead - I doubt they'd bother for an injury.

This is always going to be one of those contraversial decisions. The simple fact is that on that particular day, for those particular conditions, it turned out to be a correct decision.

In the same circumstances, but different conditions either circuit-config, weather, type of debris etc., it may have been the wrong one.

Had there been no communication with Ralf or had there been a fire, I think the reaction would have been different and the response faster.

I'm sure there would be a thread here for "was the red flag necessary" had they chosen otherwise!

[Kicking-back]

Exactly. You can't please all of the people all the time.

[EvilPumpkin]

I didn't really mean it that way kicking back - I simply meant that any decision of this kind - no matter what the decision may be - is going to generate speculation.

[Kicking-back]

True.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by EvilPumpkin
They never even stopped races when marshals were dead - I doubt they'd bother for an injury.

Agreed, but it still doesn't make it the right decision.

[BootsOntheSide]

Who cares about Ralf (or Paulo Ghislimberti or Graham Beveridge) when TV schedules have to be adhered to? The FIA sure don't. This statement has done nothign to change my views on this dismal situation.

[Kicking-back]

Boots - it's very harsh to say the FIA doesn't care.

But in none of the situations you mention would a red flag have made any difference.

[paulzinho]

I think when theres a need for an ambulance on track then the race must be stopped. If somethings that serious you want to have the cars off the track.

Only saw the race today and even though i knew what happenned seeing Ralf slumped in the cockpit of the Williams for that period of time reminded me so much of when Senna had his accident at Tamburello.

[ASCII Man]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Boots - it's very harsh to say the FIA doesn't care.

It's only "politically correct" for the FIA to "care". Without PC, they wouldn't care.

[Kicking-back]

I think they genuinely do.

Read Sid Watkins book.

[Knowlesy]

So the FIA reckons that a race start is more dangerous than a potential tyre blowout at 200mph.

It's an interesting theory, you've got to give them that.

Is this the same FIA that has raised the safety bar to such massive levels over the years?

Methinks TV schedules are the real reason, but I may be cynical.

[Suzy]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
Who cares about Ralf (or Paulo Ghislimberti or Graham Beveridge) when TV schedules have to be adhered to? The FIA sure don't. This statement has done nothign to change my views on this dismal situation.

I can still remember Charlie Whiting having to red-flag the Canadian Grand Prix after a first-corner, opening lap pile-up one year. As he put out the call to stop the race, his first words were "And there goes Coronation Street!"

[Andrew Hornsey]

I have to say that in the incidents where the marshals were killed, the decision was the right one. As a long time marshal, and probationary Clerk of the Course, I know only too well the frustrations that can be caused by having crouds of people rush to the scene and block exit routes and generally hinder progress. Stopping the race only brings in the rubber neckers.

Indy is a special case though, with large fences all around, and an infrastructure that should be more than able to cope. With the amount of debris on the circuit, one would have thought that the best option would have been to red flag the race and provide a proper clean up at allof the accident sites around the circuit.

Large televised sporting events such as Wimbledon and the Snooker do not normally have a problem if they overrun - perhaps this is one of the negatives about the ITV deal. Either way, the scedules are changable, espeially on Sundays. If I were Toyota, as title sponsor I would be screaming over the time of qualifying etc, but hey, thats anothr thread (Off I go to start another!)

[BootsOntheSide]

Toyota aren't involved in sponsoring it anymore, the Daily Telegraph newspaper is. Otherwise, very valid points.

Great stuff form Suzy and knowlesy too.

[Andrew Hornsey]

Doh - shows how much notice I take of the adverts these days!

[neil_davidson2]

Originally posted by Spudgun
Possible to avoid the debris at SC speeds perhaps

It may be possible to avoid the debris if you can see it. I've not sat in an F1 car recently(!) but from what I can see of the driving position the view is very limited and while it's possible to see the larger chunks of debris I think it's highly likely that the smaller shards may not be so easy to spot.