Run-Off Area Alternatives

[FW17]

why not just drop the runoff area of the track by a few inches. Car goes off cant rejoin over the bump.

I like this idea, seems like a lot of work though.

I also like those strips they have in Spa at Les Combes that Vettel ruined his floor on today, they could put those everywhere.

Already suggested the idea of a drop at the track edge and runoff with only one re-entry point. I was called a some sick things here a couple of pages back by both car and motorcycle fans. They thought (without logic) that it would be fatal.

[Töm87]

Gravel instead of tarmac as simple as that.

Why don't they just race on a huge parking lot, with some lines marking the "track".

No even arabolica as tarmac

[autogyro]

Gravel instead of tarmac as simple as that.

Why don't they just race on a huge parking lot, with some lines marking the "track".

No even arabolica as tarmac

I think they should all wear pink helmets like Button along with pink overalls.

[andylaurence]

You also have zones that are 100% not tarmac, so you do need more runoff in those areas!

Not if you simply modify the lines a bit, for example have the width less then the track width of the car.

Is that so only one or two wheels are on the lower friction surface rather than all 4? If so, then those tyres have lower grip, so it takes longer to stop, so you need more runoff.

Isn't the definition of terminal understeer that you can steer wherever you want but you won't go there?

Assuming you want to stay on track and make the turn yes. Release the lateral load and the understeer disappears.
You can´t have understeer in a straight line.

The outcome is still the same - you want to go around the corner, but you can't. The difference is you're now resigned to that fact and accepting you can only go straight on.

Exactly. For this reason, you need the tarmac to slow you down. In this case, adding slippery sections will reduce how much you slow down, meaning you either hit something harder or need more runoff.

There is tarmac to slow you down, worst case scenario is that while you are spinning, you´ll spin around slightly faster.
But that´s assuming we know the actual data on car sliding over tarmac vs astro-turf.

Beelse said 2-3G´s for tarmac and 0.5G for astro-turf but he still haven´t brought the source he got the data from so we don´t know.

The actual values are irrelevant. The fact is that one is noticeably smaller than the other - that is what your idea is based upon in order to stop cars keeping speed as they run wide. This means that it will take longer to stop as well as reduce the grip in cornering by using material type as the varying factor. That there is less tarmac with your idea is the important point here. With less high grip surface, there is less retardation.

As I said previously, I don't think your idea is completely invalid. In fact, I think it's pretty reasonable to try and reduce grip depending on the direction of travel. What I don't think is valid is your suggested method of implementation.

[SectorOne]

Is that so only one or two wheels are on the lower friction surface rather than all 4? If so, then those tyres have lower grip, so it takes longer to stop, so you need more runoff.

No it´s so that you always can easily get four wheels on tarmac with very small corrections.
We can modify them so they are essentially stripes rather then lines.
The images are just an extremely broad idea of the concept.

The outcome is still the same - you want to go around the corner, but you can't. The difference is you're now resigned to that fact and accepting you can only go straight on.

Which is exactly the point of them. You´re not supposed to just swing back on track again, you need to break in a straight line, turn the car around and proceed with caution over the stripes which is now in a lateral pattern in front of you as opposed to longitudinal when you first go off.

The actual values are irrelevant. The fact is that one is noticeably smaller than the other - that is what your idea is based upon in order to stop cars keeping speed as they run wide. This means that it will take longer to stop as well as reduce the grip in cornering by using material type as the varying factor. That there is less tarmac with your idea is the important point here. With less high grip surface, there is less retardation.

Values are of very high importance in my opinion, there´s even discussion now about astroturf is probably not slippery enough for F1 cars unless it´s wet. I think for braking in a straight line the effect of dry astroturf is slightly exaggerated.

Remember the run off distances is dictated by Motorcycles, not Formula 1 cars.

Stopping distances with smaller stripes will have a negligible effect on the slowing down process.
Less tarmac but the vast majority is still tarmac to be used as you would normally.

[andylaurence]

Is that so only one or two wheels are on the lower friction surface rather than all 4? If so, then those tyres have lower grip, so it takes longer to stop, so you need more runoff.

No it´s so that you always can easily get four wheels on tarmac with very small corrections.
We can modify them so they are essentially stripes rather then lines.
The images are just an extremely broad idea of the concept.

So the driver of the out of control car will carefully guide his car down the narrow strip of tarmac? How will he do this when travelling backwards ... or sideways?

The outcome is still the same - you want to go around the corner, but you can't. The difference is you're now resigned to that fact and accepting you can only go straight on.

Which is exactly the point of them. You´re not supposed to just swing back on track again, you need to break in a straight line, turn the car around and proceed with caution over the stripes which is now in a lateral pattern in front of you as opposed to longitudinal when you first go off.

That only caters for the driver who's outbraked himself.

[SectorOne]

So the driver of the out of control car will carefully guide his car down the narrow strip of tarmac? How will he do this when travelling backwards ... or sideways?

He will have to deal with it, cars will travel sideways and backwards on 100% tarmac as well.
Mine would be approx 90% tarmac with the stripe modification i would estimate. Somewhere around there.

That only caters for the driver who's outbraked himself.

Or understeered off yes. If you oversteer out of control (as can happen today) and you stop you have lost more time then the guy who simply went off "in control".

[strad]

Many of these arguments are to allow a driver to over drive the car or out drive his talent and the whole idea to my thinking is to stop exactly that. To make them slow down more so they don't go off.
I don't want to see anyone hurt but I do want them to be forced to respect the track, their ability and the cars ability.
IF there is some accident involved, with todays super safe cars it would still be one they can walk away from but ruin their race. They would then quickly change their driving styles and tactics.
Watch Button at Monaco, Webbers off unabated head on into the barriers and a dozen others and realize it would take a very special set of circumstances for them to even sprain an ankle. Many act as though ANY accident would be fatal.
Not so in todays cars.
Racing doesn't need to be totally safe there should be some danger.
If you would go back a few pages to my quotes you'd see that the drivers themselves think it's too safe and want some of the thrill and danger returned.

[Moxie]

Many of these arguments are to allow a driver to over drive the car or out drive his talent and the whole idea to my thinking is to stop exactly that. To make them slow down more so they don't go off.
I don't want to see anyone hurt but I do want them to be forced to respect the track, their ability and the cars ability.
IF there is some accident involved, with todays super safe cars it would still be one they can walk away from but ruin their race. They would then quickly change their driving styles and tactics.
Watch Button at Monaco, Webbers off unabated head on into the barriers and a dozen others and realize it would take a very special set of circumstances for them to even sprain an ankle. Many act as though ANY accident would be fatal.
Not so in todays cars.
Racing doesn't need to be totally safe there should be some danger.
If you would go back a few pages to my quotes you'd see that the drivers themselves think it's too safe and want some of the thrill and danger returned.

You do have a point here, but recognize that as the speeds increase, so does the danger. I have refrained from making the following argument because I know most people would just find it heretical to the religion of F1. I present it here for the sake of conversation, but I am pretty sure the response won't be positive.

Leave walls in place, or even build new ones, but slow the cars down. I'll leave the question of how much slower up for debate, but consider the possibilities.

Smaller displacement engines can still be technologically wonderful. Imagine a lawn mower sized engine pushing a F1 car in excess of 150mph.

More mass with the requirement that most of the added mass be used to meet increased front, rear, lateral and offset front and rear impact standards.

This strategy will also have a couple of knock on effects that might be viewed as positive, if the views expressed in other topics are any indication.

As the speeds reduce so to will the effect of aero including the negative consequences of following. This is not to say that the cars will be bricks. Well financed teams will still strive to maximize aero efficiency, but the return on investment analysis will change.

As mass increases there would be an increased need for mechanical engineering solutions and driver ability. (Especially in light of the reduced aero)

Increased mass and need for driver ability would reduce the temptation to stick a driver in the cockpit just because he has big sponsorship money.

[strad]

Watch and listen , watch some of the other horrendous accidents we've had and try to understand
http://www.stradsplace.com/VIDEOS/Button-on-danger.wmv
.
http://www.stradsplace.com/VIDEOS/Lewis-Im-safe.wmv
The cars can handle tremendous impact with the driver bouncing out and walking away, just to take even larger risks.
Having made it so safe you're inviting them to court more risk and encouraging them to disrespect the boundaries. Sooner or later you will see another driver die because of your unwillingness to address the problem.
You don't need to make the cars slower, you need to make them drive safer. This can be accomplished by making more of a punishment for purposely over driving.

[Moxie]

Watch and listen , watch some of the other horrendous accidents we've had and try to understand
http://www.stradsplace.com/VIDEOS/Button-on-danger.wmv
.
http://www.stradsplace.com/VIDEOS/Lewis-Im-safe.wmv
The cars can handle tremendous impact with the driver bouncing out and walking away, just to take even larger risks.
Having made it so safe you're inviting them to court more risk and encouraging them to disrespect the boundaries. Sooner or later you will see another driver die because of your unwillingness to address the problem.
You don't need to make the cars slower, you need to make them drive safer. This can be accomplished by making more of a punishment for purposely over driving.

I'm sorry strad, I mean no disrespect, but your argument is circular.

Driving race cars used to be very dangerous, and all too often, deadly
Racecars have become too safe allowing the participants to drive recklessly
Therefore, the answer is to make the sport more deadly...
To save lives.


I Agree that drivers should be encouraged to control their vehicles. I agree that there should be severe consequences for failing to stay within the track limits. But you must find a far better argument to convince me that the solution is to make the sport more dangerous.

[strad]

how else ya gonna do it if the FIA will not enforce their own rules?
There has to be consequences .

[Moxie]

how else ya gonna do it if the FIA will not enforce their own rules?
There has to be consequences .

Watch a different series.

I'm not joking and I'm not being snarky. I've started watching Indy Car again, and I have enjoyed GrandAm/Tudor sports cars for several years now. The cars are not the spectacular pieces of engineering that one finds in F1, but the racing sure is a lot better.

[andylaurence]

So the driver of the out of control car will carefully guide his car down the narrow strip of tarmac? How will he do this when travelling backwards ... or sideways?

He will have to deal with it, cars will travel sideways and backwards on 100% tarmac as well.
Mine would be approx 90% tarmac with the stripe modification i would estimate. Somewhere around there.

So about 10% lower grip surface, requiring the extra run-off because of reduced retardation.

Or understeered off yes. If you oversteer out of control (as can happen today) and you stop you have lost more time then the guy who simply went off "in control".

You're only considering the penalty aspect and ignoring the safety aspect. In that case, just delete the runoff entirely or make the whole runoff a low grip surface. The difficulty is in maintaining the safety and still fairly penalising drivers.

[SectorOne]

So about 10% lower grip surface, requiring the extra run-off because of reduced retardation.

Not really because there´s more run-off then F1 cars actually need, because of motorcycles which demand more of it.

You're only considering the penalty aspect and ignoring the safety aspect. In that case, just delete the runoff entirely or make the whole runoff a low grip surface. The difficulty is in maintaining the safety and still fairly penalising drivers.

I´m not, i´m just not thinking people will die or get seriously hurt if 5% of the tarmac has stripes.
Safety is already extremely good in these run-off/barrier situations.