[Official] Belgian Grand Prix 2021: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 12 of 22

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Sort of a silly question, but why are are full wets not narrower than normal racing tyres? Yesterday there were two major issues, 1 aquaplaning risk due to standing water and 2 Visibility issues from the spray.

Both problems could be reduced if the full wets were narrower. Any thoughts?

Vast majority of races are dry, or have no issues with the wet tires. Even if narrower tires were used, and that did reduce the issue of aquaplaning or spay, by how much would it help? Would it really have made a difference this past weekend. All it might do is move the threshold up for "too bad to race" slightly higher. I view the bigger problem this past weekend was the spray and you could probably cut the width in half and it would still have been bad.

Is this problem large enough to try to solve via those methods? Generally speaking, I think most fans like the wider tires. Bad weather happens. We should try to not use big hammers to solve edge case wet weather. If anything, what should be looked at is the aspects of this past weekend (single digit safety car laps is a race, etc.) issues.

Richard

[chillibowl]

im not sure how you can compel a bunch of volunteers, without whom you can have no event, to stay on an extra day and thus delaying their going back home and to their regular jobs monday morning.

personally i sympathize more with the organizers and promotors and really anyone who tries to host an event during these uncertain times. frankly have put up with too much anti mask/anti vaxxers anti business stance to not respect business more.

and at what cost should they issue a refund? are they able to afford next years race if this year's money is refunded? what if a refund comes at the expense of future races at Spa?

maybe im mixing apples and oranges here and/or being harsh but enbough is enough... people made a choice to attend an outdoor event and they clearly knew rain was a major possibility because they all showed up with rain gear!

anyways, for the sake of optics, some sort of discount on next years seats is probably a good idea but a refund is too much imo.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Additionally: I imagine another reason for making the race official is that COVID makes rescheduling difficult. Fitting Spa in would be difficult. It would be logistically easier (as well as commercially) to make the race official.

Basically they had 4 options:
1 - race
2 - don't race and cancel
3 - don't race and reschedule
4 - don't race and make the race official

1 was not an option. 2, 3 and 4 were. The only beneficiaries to 4 was F1 themselves. Everyone else loses out. And they chose 4.

Did declaring it a race make a difference to the commercial position of F1?

Do we know this?
Domenicali said it didn’t: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1...an-gp/6656999/

Did race control do it for that reason? Or were they trying to actually get, at least, a little bit of a real race. Might as well try at the point of last hope to achieve 1 on your list. Even if there was little hope.

3 on your list doesn’t seem on. Late notice and no provision for this.

All this notwithstanding. It would be good to give refunds. Whether that is 2 or 4 on your list.

[steve_r]

Just caught up with thie debacle after being away over the weekend. I have not read the preceedign 16 pages, but my thoughts are that they had an admirable go at staging the race, but were defeated by the weather and decision to award points was very strange, as they were never actually going to be able to properly race.

Oh well, onto the next one - the one where everyone is already saying that overtaking is impossible.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

That could lead to either aerodynamic anomalies or the need to transport several sets of different sized wheels.Or both.

I rather have a predictable reduction in downforce than a very unpredictable lack of tyre-tarmac contact due to aquaplaning. Then again, quite possibly, the reduction in downforce might not be that predictable after all.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Vast majority of races are dry, or have no issues with the wet tires. Even if narrower tires were used, and that did reduce the issue of aquaplaning or spay, by how much would it help? Would it really have made a difference this past weekend. All it might do is move the threshold up for "too bad to race" slightly higher. I view the bigger problem this past weekend was the spray and you could probably cut the width in half and it would still have been bad.

Is this problem large enough to try to solve via those methods? Generally speaking, I think most fans like the wider tires. Bad weather happens. We should try to not use big hammers to solve edge case wet weather. If anything, what should be looked at is the aspects of this past weekend (single digit safety car laps is a race, etc.) issues.

Richard

The latter I think everyone agrees on. An anomaly in the rule book that should be addressed.

On the subject of not using big hammers to solve edge cases. I saw yesterdays event as a slightly more extreme exponent of a problem we more often have; tracks being too wet for the wide tyres we use. Less aquaplaning and less spray means less delays, less boring rounds behind the SC, less red flags, more very enjoyable racing.

Any improvement in that regard would be helpful. If we had narrower tyres yesterday and there was a provision in the rule book to allow the cars to try and dry the track behind the safety car 15 minutes before race start because it wasn't going to get any better, perhaps we might have had an acceptably safe (and very enjoyable) race starting at the normal time.

On what fans want; most fans don't know what results in better racing. If anything, most like the look off the wider tires, but if they would understand the implications, would not be so enthusiastic.

[rustyfan]

Much like IndyCar needs to hire some NASCAR experts to figure out how to do proper rolling restarts, Formula 1 should hire some NASCAR experts to figure out how to handle bad weather.

Formula 1 should already have had rules in place allowing for a race to be postponed (something they now apparently intend to discuss as a future change to the rules). What happened yesterday was absolutely ridiculous.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by rustyfan

Much like IndyCar needs to hire some NASCAR experts to figure out how to do proper rolling restarts, Formula 1 should hire some NASCAR experts to figure out how to handle bad weather.

I agree that they should consult them.

Formula 1 should already have had rules in place allowing for a race to be postponed (something they now apparently intend to discuss as a future change to the rules). What happened yesterday was absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, although really we’ve not had a problem like this before. Of course, looking at this before would have been good, but a little slack as it is rarely a problem.

Having a little think about this. The solution of having a potential fall back day for a, say, a 1% chance could be very expensive for a global series. Maybe more expensive than just refunding everyone when it does actually happen? Although maybe you target certain races. It is an interesting conundrum.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and at what cost should they issue a refund? are they able to afford next years race if this year's money is refunded? what if a refund comes at the expense of future races at Spa?

maybe im mixing apples and oranges here and/or being harsh but enbough is enough... people made a choice to attend an outdoor event and they clearly knew rain was a major possibility because they all showed up with rain gear!

At Formula 1 Group's cost, in my opinion.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and at what cost should they issue a refund? are they able to afford next years race if this year's money is refunded? what if a refund comes at the expense of future races at Spa?

maybe im mixing apples and oranges here and/or being harsh but enbough is enough... people made a choice to attend an outdoor event and they clearly knew rain was a major possibility because they all showed up with rain gear!

anyways, for the sake of optics, some sort of discount on next years seats is probably a good idea but a refund is too much imo.

This is an interesting point that I alluded to.

I am very much that it is an unfortunate situation that is not the fault of the organizers.

More and more though it is the organizer that is footing the bill - as seen through Covid.

And, recently, I have bought tickets for things based on whether I can get a full refund. E.g. event tickets, hotel tickets.

It’s an interesting point and not that straight forward.

However, most places do seem to offer refunds, at least in goodwill. And that, I feel, is a good approach.

Originally Posted by Born Racer

At Formula 1 Group's cost, in my opinion.

I think all, from the circuit to F1 group, should work out this together.

The decision based on a pragmatic approach to where the costs and profit lie.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Did declaring it a race make a difference to the commercial position of F1?

Do we know this?
Domenicali said it didn’t: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1...an-gp/6656999/

Did race control do it for that reason? Or were they trying to actually get, at least, a little bit of a real race. Might as well try at the point of last hope to achieve 1 on your list. Even if there was little hope.

3 on your list doesn’t seem on. Late notice and no provision for this.

All this notwithstanding. It would be good to give refunds. Whether that is 2 or 4 on your list.

We don't know that it was a commercial decision - and they have denied race control were even aware of this issue. But I'd find that surprising given even Twitter was aware this was the case. There does appear to be a lot of playing ignorance involved when it comes to that.

There was no chance of that race happening. Conditions had not changed according to anyone. And they run just enough laps to to not give refunds.

Rescheduled races are absolutely on if they want it to be. The last 2 years have proven what can be done if needs to be.

Going to be very blunt here (this isn't aimed at you Adam - this is an opinion I've been forming this year) - F1s image of "gates open to everyone" is really beginning to show massive cracks, already. You've got the series going to countries which don't allow women to drive, whilst having a female only series. Not to mention the sex pest at the back of the grid. You've got the series going to countries with human rights issues. Right ok, I think these are maybe a little bit of a push, because it isn't really F1s responsibility to police that. However, it all begins to fall apart when you claim everyone is equal and yay for everyone and we love everyone when you then ask Seb and Lewis to explain their pro love t-shirts (whilst having a damn anti-racism ad running ffs), and then make the only decision they could which would cause fans to be denied refunds.

F1s recent political decisions (and Spa was a political decision) have left bad after-tastes, and contradict the front they're putting on. You don't get to say "hey, everyone come on in" then treat people like they're being treated currently.

Rant over.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

At Formula 1 Group's cost, in my opinion.

i suppose if there was a way for Liberty to eat the refunds without turning around and recouping that money from the rest of the fan base (increase sanctioning fees equals higher ticket prices, more expensive TV subscriptions, increase merch costs etc) then i would be with you.

Originally Posted by Adam43

I think all, from the circuit to F1 group, should work out this together.

The decision based on a pragmatic approach to where the costs and profit lie.

indeed.

those who waited out in the ran are great fans and every reasonable attempt to convince them to come back next year should be considered.

of course such a measured response does little for my picking a side and being outraged though!

[fieldodreams79]

Only 'mildly moist'....

https://twitter.com/stuartg917/statu...07193642082304

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Going to be very blunt here (this isn't aimed at you Adam - this is an opinion I've been forming this year) - F1s image of "gates open to everyone" is really beginning to show massive cracks, already. You've got the series going to countries which don't allow women to drive, whilst having a female only series. Not to mention the sex pest at the back of the grid. You've got the series going to countries with human rights issues. Right ok, I think these are maybe a little bit of a push, because it isn't really F1s responsibility to police that. However, it all begins to fall apart when you claim everyone is equal and yay for everyone and we love everyone when you then ask Seb and Lewis to explain their pro love t-shirts (whilst having a damn anti-racism ad running ffs), and then make the only decision they could which would cause fans to be denied refunds.

F1s recent political decisions (and Spa was a political decision) have left bad after-tastes, and contradict the front they're putting on. You don't get to say "hey, everyone come on in" then treat people like they're being treated currently.

Rant over.

not an unreasonable point to make. i struggle with it as well and much of my anger at F1 is probably misdirected anger because of this conflict.

there is a phoniness to it all because at the end of the day there is this money thing that they all actually care about alot and anytime one is confronted by this realization then for sure some hard questions will have to be asked.

two things though.

one, imo this negative relationship between big sport and big business has been going on long before any public displays of equality. money is an inherent problem with all professional sports.

and two, am i more disappointed at the sport itself or at myself for still being a fan despite this money first problem?

waxing philosophical, another way to look at is as cultural. many cultures have no problems with prioritizing commercials realities. one would think western societies have no problem with this but then i also have this bourgeois sensibility that requires me to be (or feign) offended or disappointed anytime the subject of money is brought up despite money being literally brought up all the time (or me talking about money all the time).

we are a conflicted and tortured culture to say the least. certainly recidivists because we keep on coming back only to be let down by F1 time and time again lol.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

We don't know that it was a commercial decision - and they have denied race control were even aware of this issue. But I'd find that surprising given even Twitter was aware this was the case. There does appear to be a lot of playing ignorance involved when it comes to that.

This is what I was driving at. We don’t know. Yet there is an assumption that F1 benefits from it technically being a race. And a further assumption - accusation - that race control’s behavior was due to this.

It is an assumption we have made.

Which is unfair, we’ve hung someone on evidence we don’t actually know. But people are angry.

Remember last year - there were lots of assumptions about what was and wasn’t contractually allowed with races, cancellations and rescheduling. How F1 was completely lying about being able to achieve a calendar of so many races because of various contractual situations. This turned out to be a complete non-issue. Twitter knew. Twitter was wrong.

Domenicali says it doesn’t make a difference. He would know, but could be lying. Twitter says it does, but it could be ignorant.

There was no chance of that race happening. Conditions had not changed according to anyone. And they run just enough laps to to not give refunds.

It was very unlikely they could run. Despite that why not try? Just in case. Unlikely as it was.

I would have if I had race control. No commitment to race, but I would have tried.
People thought it was unlikely that we would get a decent calendar last year, but they tried. Aimed for the best and did very well. Similar philosophy here.

They ran just enough to not give refunds - again we don’t actually know what is the commercial arrangement. I know twitter was - and it was my initial assumption as it is in folk lore - but I realised I didn’t actually know. It has never ever been tested before.

Rescheduled races are absolutely on if they want it to be. The last 2 years have proven what can be done if needs to be.

Yes. But it is a bit different if you already have the people there. If, even if unlikely, at least have a go at a race.

Going to be very blunt here (this isn't aimed at you Adam - this is an opinion I've been forming this year) - F1s image of "gates open to everyone" is really beginning to show massive cracks, already. You've got the series going to countries which don't allow women to drive, whilst having a female only series. Not to mention the sex pest at the back of the grid. You've got the series going to countries with human rights issues. Right ok, I think these are maybe a little bit of a push, because it isn't really F1s responsibility to police that. However, it all begins to fall apart when you claim everyone is equal and yay for everyone and we love everyone when you then ask Seb and Lewis to explain their pro love t-shirts (whilst having a damn anti-racism ad running ffs), and then make the only decision they could which would cause fans to be denied refunds.

F1s recent political decisions (and Spa was a political decision) have left bad after-tastes, and contradict the front they're putting on. You don't get to say "hey, everyone come on in" then treat people like they're being treated currently.

Woah! This is a stretch to relate it to the same topic. Mixing them together clouds the view of this point.

I believe they have not given refunds to everyone, irrespective of race, gender and sexuality. That’s equality.

Rant over.

certainly was a rant at the end.

To clarify why I am back here on this point.

1. I am totally of the view that there should consider this a non-race. Irrespective of whether it was technically a race or not. I want F1 to consider this irrespective of any technicality.

2. I note chilli’s view about responsibility of this, but not really commenting other than I think this is interesting. But I would like to see refunds.

3. I would really like to know whether commercially it does make a difference. It is an assumption at this point.

4. I support race control having one last go to see if it worked. Even if unlikely. I’ll won’t accuse them of something on purely circumstantial evidence. If F1 doesn’t use a technicality then this improves the perception that there is influence.

The important thing to me is what they actually do. Irrespective of any technicality.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

Only 'mildly moist'....

https://twitter.com/stuartg917/statu...07193642082304

What was everyone moaning about.

Can’t race. Are these people real racers.

[Mike Harte]

As concerns the matter of refunds, F1 could well take a look at what happened at the recent cricket Test match in Leeds over the weekend. The match was cleaned up by the England team by taking the last 8 wickets in the first hour and a half of the day's play to win the game on the 4th day, so all ticket holders for that day will receive 50% of that day's tickets, which I think is pretty fair. Holders of 5th day tickets receive a full refund for that day.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As concerns the matter of refunds, F1 could well take a look at what happened at the recent cricket Test match in Leeds over the weekend. The match was cleaned up by the England team by taking the last 8 wickets in the first hour and a half of the day's play to win the game on the 4th day, so all ticket holders for that day will receive 50% of that day's tickets, which I think is pretty fair. Holders of 5th day tickets receive a full refund for that day.

Yes. This approach is good.

Test match cricket does this because it is relatively likely. There have been many examples of it. Some people wouldn’t buy tickets otherwise. F1, much much less likely, but that also means less chance of payout.

Massive dent on the income for some of these grounds when it does happen mind.

This, I suspect and just pragmatically, then ends up being priced into tickets. Like an insurance. Cost of a five day test is spread over the tickets for four days. Ultimately those that go to normal days fund the disrupted days.

F1 should do this. Have an insurance to cover a potential lost GP (or a day over a weekend). It should probably be F1 that did this to cover all GP rather than individual race organizers. Ultimately it would be covered by the ticket. In a small way everyone who goes to a undisrupted GP fund the refund to the disrupted punters.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes. This approach is good.

Test match cricket does this because it is relatively likely. There have been many examples of it. Some people wouldn’t buy tickets otherwise. F1, much much less likely, but that also means less chance of payout.

Massive dent on the income for some of these grounds when it does happen mind.

This, I suspect and just pragmatically, then ends up being priced into tickets. Like an insurance. Cost of a five day test is spread over the tickets for four days. Ultimately those that go to normal days fund the disrupted days.

F1 should do this. Have an insurance to cover a potential lost GP (or a day over a weekend). It should probably be F1 that did this to cover all GP rather than individual race organizers. Ultimately it would be covered by the ticket. In a small way everyone who goes to a undisrupted GP fund the refund to the disrupted punters.

The fans could also just take out their own insurance and save the rest of us the add on on a ticket. As a fan you know these cars can't run in monsoon conditions, just accept your fate.

Do the tickets still say: "No refund in the event of Rain"; on the back?

I really think that Masi and company got this one right, the awarding of the half points too, considerable effort was put into the preparation for the race and it seems fair to reward the effort.

[Taxi645]

Is there a practical and/or rulebook reason why it would not be possible to try and dry the track behind the safetycar say 15-20 minutes before race start?

So if rain is predicted all parties involved get a heads up that the cars may need to head out behind the safetycar 15-20 min before the start of the race. They then see if they can get the track dry enough to get a safe race start and the drivers can give their judgement on the track conditions without boring fans who are expecting a race. After 10-15 minutes they decide if they can either:

1 Race (at the normal time)
2 Need to run a bit longer behind the SC to try and get the track a bit dryer still.
3 Cancel the effort for now, because they can't get it dry enough.

This has a number of advantages:

1 The track is safer to start on.
2 Better chance to start at normal race time.
3 More flexible in the use of any window in the weather.
4 Better for the audience (especially behind the telly) to have the drying of the track before the race rather than during.


I'm not sure if it would have made much difference yesterday, but as wet races are the best races we have, any change not to miss an opportunity for one would be welcome in my book.

[Akrapovic]

I don't think that'd go down well - with limits on things like engines, you're asking them to run longer. Granted it's only 20 minutes but I imagine some may not like that. Fuel and tyres might be an issue too.

If you mean 20 minutes before the race start, then circuit logistics might be an issue too.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't think that'd go down well - with limits on things like engines, you're asking them to run longer. Granted it's only 20 minutes but I imagine some may not like that. Fuel and tyres might be an issue too.

If you mean 20 minutes before the race start, then circuit logistics might be an issue too.

I understand what you are saying. But how about removing that 20mins from the race distance?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I understand what you are saying. But how about removing that 20mins from the race distance?

Yup, didn't think of that - good solution!

[ascarracinguk]

It would be interesting to see if the circuit had any sort of weather insurance.

Santa Pod for instance gives full refunds for a day of cancelled racing due to incliment weather, or a percentage of, if some racing is completed which can then be put towards ticket value of another event, up to and including the same event next year.

It obviously doesnt pay for accomodation etc but at least it takes the sting out a bit.

[GregUK]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

It would be interesting to see if the circuit had any sort of weather insurance.

This is Spa!!

Nobody would insure what the weather would be in the next 5 minutes ....

[Richard C]

Regarding sending the F1 cars out for some time prior to the start. The issues I see are...

* Fuel/tire (already mentioned that we can deduct 20 minutes from race length. But note... we are now getting into the territory of again shrinking the race.)
* Disruption to pre-race grid prep activities. What activities do the teams do on the grid that would now need to be rushed because if you are running laps, BEFORE the start time, then the schedule needs to be moved up. And how late can the call be made to move the schedule up.
* How efficient are F1 cars "at safety car speed" at drying the track. My general feeling is that once the cars are more up to speed and they are pumping water off the racing line up into the air in the form of spray that (ideally) settles off the circuit. But while at lower speeds are they really moving that much off the circuit and just having to run the risk of running in conditions we feel the cars are not safe to run in? This past weekend didn't we have drivers effectively saying it wasn't safe to run behind the safety car. That they couldn't even see the car in front of them at slow speeds?
* Places in which there are drainage issues and have streams of water running across the track are unlikely to be solved by running cars. They will just be an aquaplane hazard.
* What if it is just raining hard enough to keep the track wet even with cars running? This could resolve the issue in "some" scenarios, but not in others. And it puts lots of expensive equipment at risk, and using them in a way they are not designed to be used.

Richard