R.I.P. wet weather F1 racing

[Louis Agilais]

wnut, I do agree with you about Niki Lauda being brave with that choice. Also, and I'm sure you agree, I like James Hunt being a World Champion.

[Purist]

But what is "unnecessarily dangerous"?

And debris accidents generally have NOTHING to do with the specific circuit. And the Surtees and Massa accidents are irrelevant here, because adverse weather had absolutely ZERO input on those situations. If you want to draw a conclusion from those accidents, how about that open-cockpit cars should be banned? Of course, if the piece of debris is hefty enough, an enclosed car won't guarantee anything either, like what happened to Jesus Pareja in the Group C race at Montreal, in the dry I might add, when a manhole cover got loose.

As for Lauda, he couldn't blink properly while still recovering from his burns, so he had an extra, major, reason to sit out.

Funny thing about driver contracts, many have contained stipulations against skiing for quite some time, yet drivers have been violating that particular condition with impunity for well over two decades.

I suppose I look at things from the reverse perspective to some. That is to say, people risk themselves out of relative necessity all the time. So, why should these privileged, heinously-well-paid drivers, be so deserving of protection that goes far beyond what so many other professionals get, professionals who arguably are far more essential to the functioning of civil society?

And I'll go back to my previous point that, these are supposed to be the "best" (most skilled) drivers in the world, in the "best" (most advanced) circuit, road racing cars on Earth. Driving in the rain is a normal, everyday occurrence, alongside 20+ton big rigs no less, so it is perfectly reasonable to EXPECT that the "best" drivers in the world have and demonstrate wet-weather driving skills when called upon to do so.

As for changes in visibility behind the wheel over the years, I'm not sure that there has been a massive shift. Cars used to be smaller with narrower tires, but then, many of the circuits back then were much narrower in terms of car widths, which meant you couldn't get as far out to the side to avoid what spray there was. And I would say that I don't think spray has been noticeably worse since the introduction of the Lotus 79 in 1978. And actually, those big sidepods probably helped block the spray off the tires, though I can bet that you got a pretty nice roostertail off the back from those venturi tunnels.

Back to Montreal specifically, throw the yellow if someone stops/crashes in a particularly hazardous location, but if the drivers successfully handle themselves, there's no reason to automatically deploy the Safety Car when it starts to shower.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Purist

And I'll go back to my previous point that, these are supposed to be the "best" (most skilled) drivers in the world, in the "best" (most advanced) circuit, road racing cars on Earth.

They certainly are some of the most advanced cars…but is that the problem? On a dry circuit, F1 cars are wickedly fast and therein lies the problem. These cars only work at their optimum in certain conditions...the dry. Chalk it up too over specialization and the resulting inability to adapt to change.

‘what is "unnecessarily dangerous"?’

Well for me, an element of it is using cars that aren’t designed to run in the wet being asked to run in the wet. Highly specialized cars combined with the parc ferme rules being as they are and im not sure what choice race control has anymore when it comes to wet races. To be fair no one is designing cars only for wet races but by not allowing any set up changes this becomes an impossible situation. As long as this remains they will always have to ‘err on the side of caution’. I think anyone dealing with this level of responsibility would come to that same conclusion.

Change the cars as some have suggested (but that compromises dry racing which is obviously more common )or more simply change the rules. touched upon earlier by garcon and spudgun, much of the uncertainty of the wet could be alleviated if the parc ferme rules did not apply if a race was declared a wet race.

[Louis Agilais]

Those rules don't make any sense, really, that's true

[Purist]

And yet, F1 is supposed to be "racing". If you make the cars more "perfect" for wet conditions, you inhibit the 'racing", which is considered a MAJOR problem that F1 has been having in dry conditions. Having "complete" control, or as complete as we humans can muster, seems inherently incompatible with actual racing. Does it not? An integral part of why many of us love wet racing is that it forces the drivers to demonstrate greater skill because conditions are not going to be "ideal", and this "imperfection" inherently leads to increased unpredictability.

Intuitively, if my road car can do X in the performance department, I simply EXPECT that these wondermobiles MUST be capable of doing the same. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't make sense if they don't, and that will bother me quite significantly, no matter what other tack you use to attempt to rationalize it. All my technical training and college courses can't override my natural intuition that says there is just something "wrong" if they "can't" do this.

This all kind of reminds me of an adage. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And what I mean is that these F1 cars, even for someone with my level of knowledge, still seem "magical" in what they can do, so to speak. I already called them "wondermobiles" for crying out loud. And so, until I clearly see, for myself, a limit being reached or surpassed, at some level, I'm incapable of just blindly accepting that these machines even have said limits.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by Purist

And yet, F1 is supposed to be "racing". If you make the cars more "perfect" for wet conditions, you inhibit the 'racing", which is considered a MAJOR problem that F1 has been having in dry conditions. Having "complete" control, or as complete as we humans can muster, seems inherently incompatible with actual racing. Does it not? An integral part of why many of us love wet racing is that it forces the drivers to demonstrate greater skill because conditions are not going to be "ideal", and this "imperfection" inherently leads to increased unpredictability.

Intuitively, if my road car can do X in the performance department, I simply EXPECT that these wondermobiles MUST be capable of doing the same. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't make sense if they don't, and that will bother me quite significantly, no matter what other tack you use to attempt to rationalize it. All my technical training and college courses can't override my natural intuition that says there is just something "wrong" if they "can't" do this.

This all kind of reminds me of an adage. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And what I mean is that these F1 cars, even for someone with my level of knowledge, still seem "magical" in what they can do, so to speak. I already called them "wondermobiles" for crying out loud. And so, until I clearly see, for myself, a limit being reached or surpassed, at some level, I'm incapable of just blindly accepting that these machines even have said limits.

Excellently written Purist! Particularly important for me is the point about intuition and thinking particularly about the more casual viewers, when they turn on the TV and hear and watch supposedly some of the best drivers in the world unable to drive in the wet, natural intuition immediately suggests that either the idea the drivers are the best in the world isn't true, or the cars are rubbish to drive in the wet, neither of which look great for F1. The other thing is even if they are rubbish to drive in the wet, we are missing an opportunity for the drivers to really show the skills they have by driving in such tricky situations.

[Louis Agilais]

add the fact that wet races generally generate genuin exciting races with lots of overtakings (and real overtakes, not contrived ones, where one pilot can DRS and the other one can't) and where differences in talent, driving skill, inteligence (strategy) are much more notorious: the races that have the ability to grab ocasional viewers and turn them into fans (speaking from my own experience).

if you don't believe me, do this thought experiment: from the list of classic f1 races (it can be your list) what percentage are wet races. then compare to the percentage of wet races in all the races. if the first perc. is bigger than the second, case and point.

[Another Bob]

Pussies

[JamesH]

Just to add, because it may not have been obvious from my previous post, that I do like to see racing in the wet - it does sort the men from the boys. I've raced in the wet, it's as scary as hell, and I have seen quite a few cars aquaplane off the track and cause considerable damage whilst trying to go in a straight line!

What I don't want to see if people injured because they have gone out in conditions that they should not have gone out in.

[luke g28]

Meh.

They arent road cars, they dont look like road cars, they dont have road car tyres and they dont have road car ride height. You can drive your commutermobile through a field if you want or probably drag it across most of an offroad course. Look at topgear in africa....

However you dont expect an F1 car to do that do you? They are specialized for dry racing and the less often they run in wet weather the higher the specialisation. We are at the point that all the car has to be able to do on wet tyres is follow the safety car and manage one flying lap before they reach the pit lane. Why would you compromise your car for 98% of race distance to make it better for the safety car laps?

Unless the cars start racing in the wet then the situation is only ever going to get worse. The other option of course is to relax the parc ferme rules.

[Ingsy]

Originally Posted by garcon

most/all of the cars set up for dry conditions at the start of the race, etc. etc.

The race was declared a wet race before the off, if I remember rightly? It seems a bit odd that all they could do is change tyres. I know that cars are in parc ferme after qualifying, but if there's a change of weather, surely they should have 10 mins to set the car up for the wet? At least then the race may have been able to start properly?

[Sodemo]

I have raced karts in the wet, fantastic feeling, I love how slides happen and how catchable they are, its seems as though the kart is constantly sliding, which is what I enjoy. Not sure what makes the kart so much more progressive in the wet, again the only way I can describe it is that every slide happens at almost half the speed and is always easy to catch, im no physics expert, but perhaps someone can explain.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I have raced karts in the wet, fantastic feeling, I love how slides happen and how catchable they are, its seems as though the kart is constantly sliding, which is what I enjoy. Not sure what makes the kart so much more progressive in the wet, again the only way I can describe it is that every slide happens at almost half the speed and is always easy to catch, im no physics expert, but perhaps someone can explain.

If you are on or very close to the absolute limit in the wet, once the tyre stsrts going sideways, it loses the ability to pump the water out from underneath it and then it begins to aquaplane. At this point the grip is gone and the aquaplaning car rapidly accelerates sideways and generally stops up against the fence.

You are not going fast enough and are exploring loss of traction well below the actual limit, you have broken traction and are doing the equivalent of linear donuts in the wet.

[Andy77]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Maybe we should all just stay at home because its much safer? In fact, im never leaving my flat now, you just never know. Never going to have another cup of coffee, beer, or eat a curry, just in case. Never going to use my car again, those tyres - you just can't trust them.

The irony is, that if it were any other series, F3, touring cars, LMS etc, they would have been racing in those full wet conditions, and they have drivers that are arguably much less experienced.

You forget to list, that it would be safer to stop breathing, just in case

[wnut]

Okay guys, lets have opaque visor races!

[Purist]

Luke g28, driving in the rain is an EVERYDAY reality for most motorists. It may not happen literally everyday, but it is an everyday consideration. Driving off-road is NOT even remotely in the same ballpark, and actually, quite a few trucks wouldn't survive much REAL off-roading anyway. Even carrying significant amounts of cargo--house supplies, groceries, other people besides the driver--for many motorists, will be much LESS common than how often they drive in wet conditions.

Wnut, now who's being over-dramatic?

Hmm, I think maybe I'll go watch FIA GT from Silverstone in 2008, or from Mugello in 2006.

[courageous]

I can see the current attitude of safety-car/red flag potentially causing a MORE dangerous situation...

Sudden downpour where in years gone by, everyone would dive into the pits for rain tyres - but now some drivers/teams may be more inclined to stay out on dry tyres & bank on the race being stopped quickly

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by courageous

I can see the current attitude of safety-car/red flag potentially causing a MORE dangerous situation...

Sudden downpour where in years gone by, everyone would dive into the pits for rain tyres - but now some drivers/teams may be more inclined to stay out on dry tyres & bank on the race being stopped quickly

That's a very risky strategy, even if you're only following the safety car until the race is red flagged.

Discussions are under way with regard to red flag situations.

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2...g-regulations/

[Purist]

Marbot, it is still certainly a possibility, especially if you're not at the top of the heap on outright pace. And it could happen by default if F1 goes to rules similar to a number of other series, where, once the full course yellow flies, pit lane is closed until the cars are cued up behind the pace car.

Hmm, maybe they ought to have more, slightly-banked corners to help with drainage, and it could help the overall racing too.

[duke_toaster]

I think there is a very valid question about tyre changes during red flag intervals. Certainly, red flag tyre changes should be banned in normal dry conditions, but most red flags these days are due to it being too wet to race.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Purist

Luke g28, driving in the rain is an EVERYDAY reality for most motorists. It may not happen literally everyday, but it is an everyday consideration. Driving off-road is NOT even remotely in the same ballpark, and actually, quite a few trucks wouldn't survive much REAL off-roading anyway. Even carrying significant amounts of cargo--house supplies, groceries, other people besides the driver--for many motorists, will be much LESS common than how often they drive in wet conditions.

Wnut, now who's being over-dramatic?

Hmm, I think maybe I'll go watch FIA GT from Silverstone in 2008, or from Mugello in 2006.

Umm.

You know what else is an everyday reality for most motorists? Boot space, passenger space, rear seats, speed cameras, speed bumps, speed limits, pot holes.

None of those things should be anywhere near an F1 car.

How can you argue that an f1 car should be able to do whatever a normal car can? A normal car is just that "normal" "average" "jack of all trades". It does lots of things quite well but nothing brilliantly. As you increase the specialisation you lose these capabilities. There are very few machines more specialised than an f1 car yet you want it to be master of all trades. Sorry.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by luke g28

You know what else is an everyday reality for most motorists? Boot space, passenger space, rear seats, speed cameras, speed bumps, speed limits, pot holes.

All good points but perhaps most relevant to add to that list would be wheel arches!

[Purist]

So, normal cars have those things. Who uses them on a regular basis? If you don't use them, it's almost as if they aren't there, and you don't even think about them, do you.

And again, driving a car in wet conditions has NOTHING inherently to do with what the car has anyway. It is a question of what the car can do, or, the conditions it can cope with. Rain is an "everyday" condition.

And so what if the cars are specialized, and rain is out of the 'norm"? Monaco is outside the norm, yet F1 manages to run there. "Specialized" racing cars have managed to run in rain for decades; I still fail to see why we aren't competent/capable enough to continue to accomplish the same thing today.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Purist

So, normal cars have those things. Who uses them on a regular basis? If you don't use them, it's almost as if they aren't there, and you don't even think about them, do you.

And again, driving a car in wet conditions has NOTHING inherently to do with what the car has anyway. It is a question of what the car can do, or, the conditions it can cope with. Rain is an "everyday" condition.

And so what if the cars are specialized, and rain is out of the 'norm"? Monaco is outside the norm, yet F1 manages to run there. "Specialized" racing cars have managed to run in rain for decades; I still fail to see why we aren't competent/capable enough to continue to accomplish the same thing today.

I am not taking sides in the argument as to whether or not F1 should race in the wet, in fact I have enjoyed wet races right back to seeing Senna shine in just every wet race he was in. But the fact that road cars are driven in the wet is a very poor argument for running F1 in the wet. Road cars are sooo different to F1 cars, you might as well argue that F1 should run in the snow because the Russian Space Agency can launch a Soyuz spacecraft into a blizzard.

[Marbot]

F1 cars are like surf boards when the conditions get too wet. They aren't designed to be driven in those conditions at the speeds they are capable of going at. Designing one to go at a faster rate in very wet conditions would be too much of a compromise on its dry conditions performance.