2024 São Paulo Grand Prix - Interlagos, Nov 01 - 03

[Watto]

really bad take honestly.

True though either people want to watch a sport as it exists, or perhaps do something else with their time.

The scenario of personal slight, because they don't like the outcome is amusing.

The competitors accept the rules, by their inclusion through making entry. Its just untenable to change it it for every spurious reason that someone didn't like.

Absolutely.

The even more striking thing to me: Do people who now want to change the rules watch other racing series? Did they watch F1 in the past? We had all sorts of rules on safety cars and red flags through all the series. And every single rule attempt had its flaws similar to a rule that would shift cars back under red. The outcome last week would have simply been that Verstappen and the Alpines go on the track with their old inters.

If you want to put in on safety, Pirelli should provide a decent alternative for the intermediates, don't blame it on these rules.

With a single tire manufacturer it makes no sense to have the intermediate be so geared for almost dry running imo.

The extremes are already in that territory where when people start putting them they call a stop to the race, might as well not exist.
Make a single tire that is more capable in dealing with water.

No. That would shift the danger to the point where drivers opt to stay out on slicks too long. This is the much more problematic situation and more often occurring.

With Brazil I get the feeling too if the top 3 probably would have kept the old inters if there was anything like the back of theback changes there didn't seem wear issues it was either too wet or track position..

But if the whole point is fairness and a level playing field that a pit under a SC/VSC can create pretty much the same disadvantage or 'luck' Either stratagey holding out hoping the a SC is called way outside a pit window where if you did pit you would be in the middle of the back. Or just a SC just a lap or two after your opponent made the call. Gaining track position. If you're about pure racing you have 'penlties' for both or neither, Plenty of races are decided by a SC

[basti313]

With Brazil I get the feeling too if the top 3 probably would have kept the old inters if there was anything like the back of theback changes there didn't seem wear issues it was either too wet or track position..

Yes, I think that was generally the plan. Not waiting for red, but somehow getting through the SC with the knowledge of the SC cycling so long that the track will be fine for the used Inter again. On the drying track the used Inter would not have been a disadvantage...maybe even an advantage as we saw it in Turkey.

But if the whole point is fairness and a level playing field that a pit under a SC/VSC can create pretty much the same disadvantage or 'luck' Either stratagey holding out hoping the a SC is called way outside a pit window where if you did pit you would be in the middle of the back. Or just a SC just a lap or two after your opponent made the call. Gaining track position. If you're about pure racing you have 'penlties' for both or neither, Plenty of races are decided by a SC

I mean...we had all these versions of it. The VSC was introduced in F1 to make it better, but only to a very limited degree.
I think the best option is how they handle it in DTM with their pit window: If the pit window is open, they keep a yellow flag for 2 laps, so that everyone can pit under yellow before the SC comes out.
This is not an option in F1 for safety reasons in my point of view.

[marcel171281]

If you want to put in on safety, Pirelli should provide a decent alternative for the intermediates, don't blame it on these rules.

With a single tire manufacturer it makes no sense to have the intermediate be so geared for almost dry running imo.

The extremes are already in that territory where when people start putting them they call a stop to the race, might as well not exist.
Make a single tire that is more capable in dealing with water.

Agreed. Is the full wet too bad, or the intermediate too good? Anyway the step between the 2 is too big, so the full wet is pointless at this moment.

[Watto]

With Brazil I get the feeling too if the top 3 probably would have kept the old inters if there was anything like the back of theback changes there didn't seem wear issues it was either too wet or track position..

Yes, I think that was generally the plan. Not waiting for red, but somehow getting through the SC with the knowledge of the SC cycling so long that the track will be fine for the used Inter again. On the drying track the used Inter would not have been a disadvantage...maybe even an advantage as we saw it in Turkey.

But if the whole point is fairness and a level playing field that a pit under a SC/VSC can create pretty much the same disadvantage or 'luck' Either stratagey holding out hoping the a SC is called way outside a pit window where if you did pit you would be in the middle of the back. Or just a SC just a lap or two after your opponent made the call. Gaining track position. If you're about pure racing you have 'penlties' for both or neither, Plenty of races are decided by a SC

I mean...we had all these versions of it. The VSC was introduced in F1 to make it better, but only to a very limited degree.
I think the best option is how they handle it in DTM with their pit window: If the pit window is open, they keep a yellow flag for 2 laps, so that everyone can pit under yellow before the SC comes out.
This is not an option in F1 for safety reasons in my point of view.

Which gets back the the point either way there will always be winner and losers and reasons some rules won't work between different catagories someone will always be unhappy.

[venkyhere]

Which gets back the the point either way there will always be winner and losers and reasons some rules won't work between different catagories someone will always be unhappy.

+1
All those who have suddenly become FIA rules experts, race directors of the internet, where were they when the safety car picked up the wrong car and handed over 'luck' to Lando Norris in the Miami GP ? The same camp who justified 'sometimes that's how it is' are raising a hue and cry now. The other camp who cried foul in Miami GP are saying 'that's how it is' now. It's impossible to remove 'confirmation bias' from a large majority of F1 fans.

[Seanspeed]

Which gets back the the point either way there will always be winner and losers and reasons some rules won't work between different catagories someone will always be unhappy.

This reasoning could be applied to dismiss literally any calls for any kind of rule changes ever, which isn't a reasonable position. It's basically saying that the rules as they are literally at this point in time is all that anybody should ever want, and anybody who would like to see changes should just stop watching. It's a quite extreme argument.

And while in this case, certainly some people clamoring for a rule change are doing so out of some bitterness of an outcome they didn't like(while undoubtedly ignoring the same rules that benefited their preferred drivers/team in races in the past), and it's fair to point that out, it doesn't mean that we should poo poo all calls for a rule change of some sort in general.

I'd also personally argue that the sport should do more to make the 'pitting under a safety car' aspect more fair. But I'm also a stickler for fairness, even at the cost of more 'exciting' races due to track position mix ups. And I've also held this position consistently for a long while. VSC was a good improvement over just having a SC, but the pitting under the SC/VSC is still definitely an issue. I think there's a couple solutions that would improve things, even if they dont completely eliminate any level of luck. Like pitting under a VSC requires a minimum pit length time(18-22 seconds depending on track), which would immediately get lifted if the track goes green while a car is still in the pits. Teams could all work that out going into a weekend pretty easily, basically just having a predetermined stop time to ensure they make the minimum overall time. Not perfect, you could get caught out if you have your long stop and then it goes green after while you're still traveling down the distance, but I dont think discouraging teams from pitting under VSC is a terrible idea anyways.

[Watto]

Which gets back the the point either way there will always be winner and losers and reasons some rules won't work between different catagories someone will always be unhappy.

This reasoning could be applied to dismiss literally any calls for any kind of rule changes ever, which isn't a reasonable position. It's basically saying that the rules as they are literally at this point in time is all that anybody should ever want, and anybody who would like to see changes should just stop watching. It's a quite extreme argument.

And while in this case, certainly some people clamoring for a rule change are doing so out of some bitterness of an outcome they didn't like(while undoubtedly ignoring the same rules that benefited their preferred drivers/team in races in the past), and it's fair to point that out, it doesn't mean that we should poo poo all calls for a rule change of some sort in general.

I'd also personally argue that the sport should do more to make the 'pitting under a safety car' aspect more fair. But I'm also a stickler for fairness, even at the cost of more 'exciting' races due to track position mix ups. And I've also held this position consistently for a long while. VSC was a good improvement over just having a SC, but the pitting under the SC/VSC is still definitely an issue. I think there's a couple solutions that would improve things, even if they dont completely eliminate any level of luck. Like pitting under a VSC requires a minimum pit length time(18-22 seconds depending on track), which would immediately get lifted if the track goes green while a car is still in the pits. Teams could all work that out going into a weekend pretty easily, basically just having a predetermined stop time to ensure they make the minimum overall time. Not perfect, you could get caught out if you have your long stop and then it goes green after while you're still traveling down the distance, but I dont think discouraging teams from pitting under VSC is a terrible idea anyways.

I am okay with rule changes as long as they are well thought out and not just a knee jerk reacton.

Which is why I bought up the pitting under a SC/VSC up the dicussion is around red flags but i see these are very simular issues if your point it to maintain fairness and leads you may have worked up. Both are used routinely by teams to change race outcomes often luck is involved. Either gaining track position or a big tyre offset.

Something like delta time for VSC and another for a SC could work or the race director could have come mechanism to change places around while they are following the SC the same kinda as lapped cars can unlap themselves and get on the back of the pack again.So someone that may have pitted before the SC isn't of a disadvantage and track positions could be maintained as if the race was run under green conditions . It still has drawbacks sure with the field bunched together if you have a big tyre offset do you maintain track positon and risk someone behind with fresh tyres and a bunched up field.

[dialtone]

Can whoever is in support/knows for the current setup in red flag where you can change tires and fix the car without penalty explain why that is?

[Watto]

Can whoever is in support/knows for the current setup in red flag where you can change tires and fix the car without penalty explain why that is?

The official reason was always I believe the risk of debris on the track that may puncture tyres and its a safety risk. If you choose keep the tyres to maintain your position go racing find a slow puncture and into a wall you go. What happens if some cars went through the debris and other didn't so make it a level playing field they allowed everyone to change tyres etc.

[Farnborough]

VSC implementation was in response to the tragic, and frankly awfull series of events immediately prior to Jules Bianchi accident.

It's very serious in it's introduction, which I fully agree with in using.

I'll take a variable "result" in position, points or championship, if it aids in avoiding that outcome. Fairness doesn't come into it for me in sporting terms. Thats absolutely secondary to their safety, drivers and track workers all.

I've seen enough of those type chain of events accident in F1, Moto-GP and other race series to be able to prioritise that. It should be used intelligently SC VSC Red flag etc to lead that safety risk aspect.

[Mandrake]

Why did Russel and Norris put on Inters if the track was becoming too wet for inters? They should have put on full wets on the stop. Had the race not been red flagged then all the drivers on full wets would have driven to the front. According to the "red flag should not allow changes to the car" logic they should also be compensated for having their advantage robbed by the red flag. Tsunoda would have passed both Norris and Russel had it not been for the SC and Red Flag. He was taking away 5s in the first sector alone.

[dialtone]

Why did Russel and Norris put on Inters if the track was becoming too wet for inters? They should have put on full wets on the stop. Had the race not been red flagged then all the drivers on full wets would have driven to the front. According to the "red flag should not allow changes to the car" logic they should also be compensated for having their advantage robbed by the red flag. Tsunoda would have passed both Norris and Russel had it not been for the SC and Red Flag. He was taking away 5s in the first sector alone.

I agree, that's how the race should have gone, people that put on full wets (notably not ferrari before I'm accused of wanting to advantage my team with rule changes) have been robbed of an advantage they gained by putting on the right tire for the weather.

The "according" part of your reasoning though I can't understand though.

EDIT: I will say that I consider the full wet cars to be "robbed" because the danger of the race was practically induced by the intermediate tire not being enough and teams being willing to gamble when perhaps their drivers didn't have the skill to do so (see colapinto crashing on SC with new inters on).

[Watto]

VSC implementation was in response to the tragic, and frankly awfull series of events immediately prior to Jules Bianchi accident.

It's very serious in it's introduction, which I fully agree with in using.

I'll take a variable "result" in position, points or championship, if it aids in avoiding that outcome. Fairness doesn't come into it for me in sporting terms. Thats absolutely secondary to their safety, drivers and track workers all.

I've seen enough of those type chain of events accident in F1, Moto-GP and other race series to be able to prioritise that. It should be used intelligently SC VSC Red flag etc to lead that safety risk aspect.

I tend to agree with all of that too. I think the VSC is a great idea allows gaps to be kept for minor incidents.

I also think this was a case too where the red flags had to be called enough drivers were having trouble even going slow, with debris on the track and a very wet track and marshals it had to be called (ref to Lando not thinging it deserved a red flag)

I lean towards them keeping the race going and not calling the red too upto that point because as some have pointed out too often that leads to the end of the race track gets wetter and almost impossible to drive on.