2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix - Yas Marina, Dec 10 - 12

[dans79]

ok, lets say we have all new rules that shorten the safety car by a lap... then next time the crash happens a lap later, what then? "oh well, forget this procedure, lets make a new one on the fly"

Yea, the underlying issue is the race director did not following the rules. If i was Sulayem, I would have personally called Masi and canned him the first moment I had the authority to do so. He and he alone made this mess!

[notsofast]

F1 needs green-white-checkers

F1 should implement the green–white–checker finish. I'm guessing that this is what Masi was trying to simulate in Abu Dhabi. Liberty Media would probably be a proponent of such a rule change (and perhaps we as fans too). The problem is that F1 cars are fueled for the exact number of laps they need to drive. This can be fixed by requiring each car to carry, say, an additional 10kg of fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green%E2% ... ker_finish

[El Scorchio]

The rules weren't broken before. That's not what needs fixing. The idiot in the race director's chair is what needs fixing.

A grand Prix is a prescribed distance. If on extremely rare occasions events conspire whereupon a race will/must end under a safety car by regulation, then that's that, and that's what should happen.

[PlatinumZealot]

F1 needs green-white-checkers

F1 should implement the green–white–checker finish. I'm guessing that this is what Masi was trying to simulate in Abu Dhabi. Liberty Media would probably be a proponent of such a rule change (and perhaps we as fans too). The problem is that F1 cars are fueled for the exact number of laps they need to drive. This can be fixed by requiring each car to carry, say, an additional 10kg of fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green%E2% ... ker_finish

Why do you want to extend the race though?
For entertainment reasons?

[Alexf1]

Unlapping cars while marshals are on the track has NEVER been a thing, and for good reaso. Why should it have happened at AD?

It was done many times, and there is no problem with it. It should just be done in a safe matter. So at same speed as when SC passes that point. Wouldn't it be great if a SC period doesn't take longer than needed?

Race cars don't unlap at the same speed as the saftey car actually. If they did they would never move away from the pack.

If a car that was unlapping has a failure it can careen off into the Marshalls and get someone killed. So I can't see why you are championing this idea.

Why would it be great if the saftey car doesn't take long? Why do you want to rush a safety procedure is what I'm not understanding. Or do you mean you want the Marshalls to be able to clear the track much quicker? It is better to say this and look at ways it can be done.

But anyway this hasn't much to do adress the problem of transparency, integrity and trust in the system. It's a red herring argument.

I meant unlapping cars should go through the crash site at SC speed. Rest of track higher speed. Pretty much this for the unlapping cars during SC period: https://www.24h-lemans.com/en/news/24-h ... work-46805 Thought that was pretty clear from that post and previous ones. Thinking of ways to shorten safety car periods in the way I've described is not rushing things or lower safety but improving efficiency. I don't understand you wouldn't want to think of ideas in that direction.

[dans79]

I don't understand you wouldn't want to think of ideas in that direction.

Because imo, that line of thought is why Jules is longer with us. Back in the day drivers would push as hard as they could as often as they could. Then after years of doing that' they started pushing even when they shouldn't be, trying to gain every 0.001 seconds of advanage they could get.

If you give the teams or the drivers an opportunity to gain an advantage they will take it. The benefits are to high for them not to.

[Alexf1]

I don't understand you wouldn't want to think of ideas in that direction.

Because imo, that line of thought is why Jules is longer with us. Back in the day drivers would push as hard as they could as often as they could. Then after years of doing that' they started pushing even when they shouldn't be, trying to gain every 0.001 seconds of advanage they could get.

If you give the teams or the drivers an opportunity to gain an advantage they will take it. The benefits are to high for them not to.

Not if you make the crash site a 80 km/h slow zone (car on speed limiter). Offence is instant DQ. Also I mentioned the unlapping can only start after the crane has left the track so indeed no Jules scenario.

[cooken]

I don't understand you wouldn't want to think of ideas in that direction.

Because imo, that line of thought is why Jules is longer with us. Back in the day drivers would push as hard as they could as often as they could. Then after years of doing that' they started pushing even when they shouldn't be, trying to gain every 0.001 seconds of advanage they could get.

If you give the teams or the drivers an opportunity to gain an advantage they will take it. The benefits are to high for them not to.

Not if you make the crash site a 80 km/h slow zone (car on speed limiter). Offence is instant DQ. Also I mentioned the unlapping can only start after the crane has left the track so indeed no Jules scenario.

Right, and where does this slow zone begin exactly? And I do mean exactly, because the drivers will approach it at top speed, and slam on the brakes at the last possible second. Seriously, it's just a bad idea to give drivers that responsibility.

[TimW]

They should simply reverse it and have the other cars overtake the lapped cars and move them to the back of the field that way. Mandate that they finish with an additional lap of fuel(teams must submit fuel calculations before the start).

[Alexf1]

Because imo, that line of thought is why Jules is longer with us. Back in the day drivers would push as hard as they could as often as they could. Then after years of doing that' they started pushing even when they shouldn't be, trying to gain every 0.001 seconds of advanage they could get.

If you give the teams or the drivers an opportunity to gain an advantage they will take it. The benefits are to high for them not to.

Not if you make the crash site a 80 km/h slow zone (car on speed limiter). Offence is instant DQ. Also I mentioned the unlapping can only start after the crane has left the track so indeed no Jules scenario.

Right, and where does this slow zone begin exactly? And I do mean exactly, because the drivers will approach it at top speed, and slam on the brakes at the last possible second. Seriously, it's just a bad idea to give drivers that responsibility.

They don't have to, they've got almost 2 laps to reach the back of the pack which is driving a minute a lap slower than race speed. If this is such a bad idea why are they using it at Le Mans. Works just fine.

[Alexf1]

They should simply reverse it and have the other cars overtake the lapped cars and move them to the back of the field that way. Mandate that they finish with an additional lap of fuel(teams must submit fuel calculations before the start).

Good one

[dans79]

Because imo, that line of thought is why Jules is longer with us. Back in the day drivers would push as hard as they could as often as they could. Then after years of doing that' they started pushing even when they shouldn't be, trying to gain every 0.001 seconds of advanage they could get.

If you give the teams or the drivers an opportunity to gain an advantage they will take it. The benefits are to high for them not to.

Not if you make the crash site a 80 km/h slow zone (car on speed limiter). Offence is instant DQ. Also I mentioned the unlapping can only start after the crane has left the track so indeed no Jules scenario.

Right, and where does this slow zone begin exactly? And I do mean exactly, because the drivers will approach it at top speed, and slam on the brakes at the last possible second. Seriously, it's just a bad idea to give drivers that responsibility.

Yea, and they are doing basically the same thing now under the virtual safety car. They go way faster in certain segments of the mini sectors, to warm their tires, or just to gain on their competition in hopes of the the vsc ending at just the right spot.

[dans79]

Not if you make the crash site a 80 km/h slow zone (car on speed limiter). Offence is instant DQ. Also I mentioned the unlapping can only start after the crane has left the track so indeed no Jules scenario.

Right, and where does this slow zone begin exactly? And I do mean exactly, because the drivers will approach it at top speed, and slam on the brakes at the last possible second. Seriously, it's just a bad idea to give drivers that responsibility.

They don't have to, they've got almost 2 laps to reach the back of the pack which is driving a minute a lap slower than race speed. If this is such a bad idea why are they using it at Le Mans. Works just fine.

They don't have the same issues at Le Mans. An F1 Driver will push as hard as they can get away with, because tires and brakes thats are up to temp, is a much larger advantage than in other series!

That is exactly what Jules did when he had his accident, pushing as hard as he could and waiting till the last millisecond to jab the brakes to slow for the double waved yellows!

[toraabe]

It was done many times, and there is no problem with it. It should just be done in a safe matter. So at same speed as when SC passes that point. Wouldn't it be great if a SC period doesn't take longer than needed?

Race cars don't unlap at the same speed as the saftey car actually. If they did they would never move away from the pack.

If a car that was unlapping has a failure it can careen off into the Marshalls and get someone killed. So I can't see why you are championing this idea.

Why would it be great if the saftey car doesn't take long? Why do you want to rush a safety procedure is what I'm not understanding. Or do you mean you want the Marshalls to be able to clear the track much quicker? It is better to say this and look at ways it can be done.

But anyway this hasn't much to do adress the problem of transparency, integrity and trust in the system. It's a red herring argument.

I meant unlapping cars should go through the crash site at SC speed. Rest of track higher speed. Pretty much this for the unlapping cars during SC period: https://www.24h-lemans.com/en/news/24-h ... work-46805 Thought that was pretty clear from that post and previous ones. Thinking of ways to shorten safety car periods in the way I've described is not rushing things or lower safety but improving efficiency. I don't understand you wouldn't want to think of ideas in that direction.

Red flag it instantly. All cars in pit. No tyre change allowed. Rolling start when white flag is shown. Much easier

[Mchamilton]

Because imo, that line of thought is why Jules is longer with us. Back in the day drivers would push as hard as they could as often as they could. Then after years of doing that' they started pushing even when they shouldn't be, trying to gain every 0.001 seconds of advanage they could get.

If you give the teams or the drivers an opportunity to gain an advantage they will take it. The benefits are to high for them not to.

Not if you make the crash site a 80 km/h slow zone (car on speed limiter). Offence is instant DQ. Also I mentioned the unlapping can only start after the crane has left the track so indeed no Jules scenario.

Right, and where does this slow zone begin exactly? And I do mean exactly, because the drivers will approach it at top speed, and slam on the brakes at the last possible second. Seriously, it's just a bad idea to give drivers that responsibility.

The second marshall post prior to the incident site and second marshall post after the incident site