2014 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka

[djos]

Should the FIA be trying to stop drivers putting themselves in these situations?

What and have NASCAR style competition cautions? no thanks!

[Regle]

If the drivers tyres were worn out they should have pitted for new ones. It is not the FIAs job to send out a safety car because some drivers have decided they do not need to pit for new tyres.

I totally agree! The drivers need to make the call when to change to/from Full Slicks, Inters and Full Wets. This is racing. Button got his 5th place by making the right choices at the right times.

The problem is that the car becomes a dangerous weapon if the tyre selection is significantly wrong (i.e. worn inters when full wets are required), and the driver decides to stay out to not lose 20/25 seconds in the pits at the end of a race(i.e. Massa).

Should the FIA be trying to stop drivers putting themselves in these situations?

No. The FIA should make sure that it is safe for a driver to leave the track and crash into the wall, which it failed to do here.
I agree with what has been said a few pages earlier, there's no doubt in my mind the SC should have come out.

Räikkönen hits the wall in an extremely weird way and at a point where it's very unlikely another crash will occur -> no objects, let alone entire heavy vehicles on the track -> still: SC (rightfully so, in my opinion).
A car slides off the track due to aquaplaining (if it happens once, it can – it will happen again), heavy rain, degrading tyres, a tractor a few meters in the trajectory of the racing line -> no SC?
A slightly damaged barrier in dry conditions poses a threat to a driver while several tons of unprotected steel and marshals on track in the rain don't? This is insane.

[Wayne DR]

If he 'only' hit at 60km/hr he saw an average deceleration of 64G for about a 1/4 of a second.

at 100kmh - 106G
at 130kmh - 138G

if it was up around the 200kmh/hr rate- 213G

I think the numbers you are quoting and m/s², not G's. You need to divide by 9.81m/s² (G) to get G's.

60km/h 64m/s² 6.5G
80km/h 85m/s² 8.7G
100km/h 107m/s² 10.9G
130km/h 139m/s² 14.2G
200km/h 214m/s² 21.8G

Obviously the deceleration was a lot higher, as the number I seem to recall hearing was around 40G. This equates to a stopping time of around 56ms from 80km/h (stopping in just over half a metre - the crush length of the nose cone).

[NathanOlder]

No. The FIA should make sure that it is safe for a driver to leave the track and crash into the wall, which it failed to do here.
I agree with what has been said a few pages earlier, there's no doubt in my mind the SC should have come out.

Räikkönen hits the wall in an extremely weird way and at a point where it's very unlikely another crash will occur -> no objects, let alone entire heavy vehicles on the track -> still: SC (rightfully so, in my opinion).
A car slides off the track due to aquaplaining (if it happens once, it can – it will happen again), heavy rain, degrading tyres, a tractor a few meters in the trajectory of the racing line -> no SC?
A slightly damaged barrier in dry conditions poses a threat to a driver while several tons of unprotected steel and marshals on track in the rain don't? This is insane.

Its never going to be safe, hitting a wall in a car. Its not possible to be safe. Safer maybe. But not safe. And as for the kimi accident, the safety car was deployed and rightfully so as there were multiple cars involved and huge amounts of debry across the track! Where as Sutils crash was way off the track and only the 1 car. Its crazy to try and compare the 2 accidents.

[Manoah2u]

would solve a lot.

[NathanOlder]

But as someone pointed out. To cover Suzuka with cranes, would take over 50 cranes. Monaco can almost be done with less than 20. Due to the fact you can park a crane withing 5 feet of the actual track. Not possible at Suzuka. Its only really possible on a street circuit. So cranes will never work due to the size and surrounding areas of the tracks. The only way i can see it getting safer without throwing SC out every accident would be to heavily penalise the drivers if they are not going through yellow flags at half speed. To be honest, the way it is today is as good as it needs to be. Its a freak accident that makes people panic and over react. When really the blame is heavily at the drivers feet for losing control of his vehicle. 19 cars made it through that corner without a problem that lap. So he must have done something different.

I just hope the poor guy pulls through and we can see it as a lucky escape and can move on.

[painkiller]

I think its hard to find out whos at fault here.

But for sure SPEED does matter. Why dont they use the speed limiter in yellow flagged zones. Its so easy - FIA says 120kpH at Yellow - 80at double Yellow (or what ever the Speed should be). Push the Yellow-Zone-Button....

Its also working in the Pitlane. No Driver could say "lets do it a little bit faster".

I think bianchi was clearly to fast for double yellow (like many others).

just my 2cent....

[SectorOne]

Yes it´s all about speed. If you have a massive crash in a city center you would not go and start padding up sharp corners of buildings or wrap poles in some material you just wasted millions in.

You lower the speed limit instead.

[Phil]

A car slides off the track due to aquaplaining (if it happens once, it can – it will happen again), heavy rain, degrading tyres, a tractor a few meters in the trajectory of the racing line -> no SC?

Aquaplaning is not only a function of the amount of water on the track, but speed as well and most definately the state of tyres. How do you judge if a car hasn't simply aquaplaned off the track because of either too much speed or inadequate tyres or both?

As has been said previously, Bianchi and Sutil were both on worn intermediate tyres.

The safety-car should be brought out if the track isn't deemed safe enough for normal racing anymore. That can be either because the barrier is unsafe, or debris on the track, or a grave accident. For all other situations, we have yellow and double yellow flags to warn drivers of potentially unsafe passages on the track.

Also, I'll say it again; The tractor was on the track and within the trajectory of the racing line for give or take 2.5 minutes. Bianchi hit the tractor about 2 minutes (a lap, give or take) after Sutil crashed on the lap before. Even if they had immediately deployed the safety car sign, most drivers would have still had reasonable pace around the track, despite the safety car delta time. There's a good chance this wouldn't have been avoided. If they had waited with deploying the tractor until the safety car had neutralized the field (IMO would have taken at least 2 laps), you would have had a dangerous object (Sutils car in the barriers) in the trajectory of the racing line for further 2 laps. I don't think that would have been any safer than immediately deploying the tractor and clear the wreckage in give or take 2.5 minutes.

[mrluke]

Aquaplaning is primarily about ride height.

Worn tyres give a lower ride height.

Interestingly with active suspension you could increase the ride height for wet weather.

Thinking about it more, its the parc ferme rules that prevent the teams adjusting their car to suit the conditions.

It isn't about speed, its about stopping very quickly and having the drivers head exposed. The government mantra of "speed kills" is clearly working as we now want speed limits on race tracks. Let me remind you of a similar incident also in a Marussia with a fatal outcome caused by anti stall kicking in.

[Juzh]

This one's for you sector.



Funny how fan videos can give more thrills than what fom can manage.

[Phil]

Aquaplaning is primarily about ride height.

Ehm, no. Aquaplaning has to do with loss of traction when water isn't dispersed sufficiently enough and causes the tire to lift and lose contact to the road surface. How much water can be dispersed depends on the state/type of tire (more specifically, its grooves), the amount of water on the surface, the speed of the vehicle and weight (+ downforce) of the vehicle among others. Worn tires offer less depth in the grooves which means less water that can be dissipated.

[SectorOne]

Funny how fan videos can give more thrills than what fom can manage.

That´s a great angle!

Yea it´s a completely different thing almost sitting in the audience and listening to their reactions as well.
I´m not very fond of David Croft either to be honest, i think he just screams a lot whereas Brundle when he gets going almost gives me goosebumps.

Like Bahrain during the Rosberg/Hamilton side by side into T3;
"Will he leave him any space!? Absolutely not!"

[WaikeCU]

Aquaplaning is primarily about ride height.

Ehm, no. Aquaplaning has to do with loss of traction when water isn't dispersed sufficiently enough and causes the tire to lift and lose contact to the road surface. How much water can be dispersed depends on the state/type of tire (more specifically, its grooves), the amount of water on the surface, the speed of the vehicle and weight (+ downforce) of the vehicle among others. Worn tires offer less depth in the grooves which means less water that can be dissipated.

I think it's both, because a typical rain setup would have a heigher ride height, but if your tires are worned out, then the height won't even matter tbh.

[McMrocks]

Aquaplaning is primarily about ride height.

Ehm, no. Aquaplaning has to do with loss of traction when water isn't dispersed sufficiently enough and causes the tire to lift and lose contact to the road surface. How much water can be dispersed depends on the state/type of tire (more specifically, its grooves), the amount of water on the surface, the speed of the vehicle and weight (+ downforce) of the vehicle among others. Worn tires offer less depth in the grooves which means less water that can be dissipated.

I think it's both, because a typical rain setup would have a heigher ride height, but if your tires are worned out, then the height won't even matter tbh.

A typicall rain setup has indeed a higher ride height but i think it is more due to the fact that you can run a softer suspension then.

Ride height playes almost no role in aquaplaning (from what i understood). Remember the floors of the cars sometimes even touch the ground. Water can't be that much worse. Current F1 cars run with much rake and it is hard to believe that a 670kg F1 car becomes a boat as soon as the tip of the floor touches the water.

edit: the lift created by the floor touching the water won't be enough to make a car spin off the track. Aquaplaning happens when the tyres lose contact to the ground. That happens when the amount of water on the track is higher than the amount of water the tyre can displace. A wave creates in front of the tyre and if the speed increases further the tyre will start swimming on that wave