European GP 2008

[andartop]

health and safety uber alles.. maybe we have the answer why this race was so boring, maybe all drivers agreed before the race not to overtake at all as it might have been too dangerous!!! c'mon people, let the guys RACE! it is supposed to be a RACE after all, right? yes, it was close, but so were another 1000 incidents this year, so what? massa did brake and that was it! next we 'll hear someone placing speed cameras in fast corners to make sure drivers are not going dangerously fast???

as far as WDC is concerned i think massa will take it. i think the next 4 out of 5 races favour ferrari and ferrari know that. and for conspiracy theorists out there, maybe it was all masterplanned right after schumi left (or even before that), maybe ferrari wanted to prove that the team is above all (even schumi), and they can do it with BOTH DRIVERS!!!

[WhiteBlue]

Those people who cry for a penalty to Kimi or accuse the stewards of inconsistency should read the rules. Kimi screwed up by going at the yellow light which is an internal issue to the team. He got penalty enough for loosing a lot of time. Ferrari got penalized for releasing Massa in an unsafe way which was debatable because racing in the pit lane is legal and he did not collide with Sutil's car. The fine was pretty marginal because it was debatable. So all of this is fine in my book and in compliance with the rules. I would not mind if they clarify the rules for racing in the pit lane. But as it stands the stewards did a solid job of applying them.

There is an interesting issue about the FOM camera man. I thought that this has developed into a serious concern considering the legality of racing in the pit lane. In my view there is no real need to have camera men there. They could mount several robotic cameras on wire over the slow lane and shoot this stuff with a long lense. The vertical angle would be a bit different but not severely so.

I agree with DC's comment that refulling should cease to be legal. We continue to see fires and pit lane accidents that would not happen if the work is restriucted to tyre changes. The artificial action by refuelling doesn't interest me. Let's go back to tyre stops only. Being a racing mechanic seems to be the most dangerous job today in F1.

[MattF1]

If you ban refuelling then the FIA would have to change qualifying, I wish they would go back to 1 hour, 12 laps, low fuel.

[alexbarwell]

So as I recall history, a penalty can and should be administered during the race and it is for the team to appeal afterwards - failure to take penalty in time gets a black flag, but that seems pretty academic now. Not the biggest fan of the dancing donkey, but that aside, both incidents were arguably caused by ferrari's unique and evidently unsafe pit lane practice. Is the normal function of a team's 'lolipop' man a requirement, or more a good, generally adopted practice that the team decided to play with - bit like schumy taking a penalty in the pits after crossing the oddly placed finish line? If the team is negligent like this and duly deserve punishment, maybe removal of points for the team, with a view similarly taken for the driver as this would hit the team equally. If Vettel had not budged (as would be justified) there would definitely have been an incident worth looking into. [-X

[WhiteBlue]

.. both incidents were arguably caused by ferrari's unique and evidently unsafe pit lane practice...

you seem to be unaware of the the particulars of the system you are talking about.

the Ferrari system is actually safer than a lollipop. in addition to a human operator who decides that the driver is released it also requires consent switches from the refuelling rig and the wheel fitters.

human error can happen with both systems and was the cause for both incidents in Valencia. Kimi did not wait for the green light as required. Massa was released by the pit crew bosses decision. In both cases it coulde have happened with a lollipop. in actual fact similar incidents have frequently occurred in the past with a lollipop man.

[Tehillim]

the Ferrari system is actually safer than a lollipop. in addition to a human operator who decides that the driver is released it also requires consent switches from the refuelling rig and the wheel fitters.

I doubt Kimi would have gone while the lollipop was still down. Ant Davidson commented on this on the Radio 5Live podcast, it's a high-stress situation and having your forward vision physically obstructed is a simple and effective method for controlling the driver. I don't understand why Ferrari have replaced it.

However, the Massa incident was down to the team, and would have happened with or without a lollipop, though why Ferrari couldn't hold him for 1-2 seconds extra is a mystery, Massa wasn't pressed for time at that point.

[WhiteBlue]

that is a point one would consider, but the system avoids mistakes by the lollipop man which have been happened as often as mistakes by the driver. It also is a bit faster I guess because it workes on only one persons reaction time and need no delay for motion. with a driver well trained and focussed it is an advantage. Massa hasn't had any difficulties with it.

[donskar]

I agree with WhiteBlue on this point.

As I said elsewhere, no team in F1 generates half as much interest as Ferrari. For some they can do no wrong. For many, they are evil incarnate. Either case, they get paid more than the other teams (or so consensus says) and they make a good case for deserving more.

I think it's indicative of the true lack of RACING in F1 that we argue over such minor points as this one. We have tight restrictins on engines -- life span, rev limit, etc -- transmissions; soon aerodynamics; tires. Where does it end?

F1 is moving inexorably toward a spec series run on tracks where passing is so difficult as to inhibit real RACING for position.

Does anyone want to dispute Montezemolo's contention that passing is so difficult at many courses that the pole winner usually wins?

[donskar]

I agree with WhiteBlue on this point.

As I said elsewhere, no team in F1 generates half as much interest as Ferrari. For some they can do no wrong. For many, they are evil incarnate. Either case, they get paid more than the other teams (or so consensus says) and they make a good case for deserving more.

I think it's indicative of the true lack of RACING in F1 that we argue over such minor points as this one. We have tight restrictins on engines -- life span, rev limit, etc -- transmissions; soon aerodynamics; tires. Where does it end?

F1 is moving inexorably toward a spec series run on tracks where passing is so difficult as to inhibit real RACING for position.

Does anyone want to dispute Montezemolo's contention that passing is so difficult at many courses that the pole winner usually wins?

[donskar]

SORRY. How did THAT happen?

[Miguel]

Does anyone want to dispute Montezemolo's contention that passing is so difficult at many courses that the pole winner usually wins?

I do! I actually think it's the other way round. Qualifying is nothing more than ordering the cars in order of quickness. In principle, if the faster car starts before the slower one, the slower has no chance to win. Now remember the parc fermé rule: qualifying set up is the same as race set up. Add to this that most if not all drivers are able to drive consistently to 98 or 99% of the car's potential. This results in a landscape that unless the car in front has mechanical issues or a crappy race set up or, god bless, put a Senna qualifying lap, you won't overtake. This is even before considering that in F1 the car following is disadvantaged.

IMHO, the reason why racing has been so lacking as of late is, in order, raised front wing (2005) > reduced diffuser and underside (2005) > parc fermé (2003) > aero sticky bits. I remember however 2003 as a very good year, but that may be because having just one lap qualifying allowed more variance that the system we have now, with cars tiered like the qualifying (no Ferrari will miss Q1, after all).

I'd also like to benefit from the MotoGP weekend taking part in Misano. In motorbikes, the following bike actually has a benefit but still we see fewer and fewer passes. Do they also have to change the aero rules?

[Roland Ehnström]

If you put the best drivers in the fastest cars, and then let them start ahead of the rest, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that there won't be much passing...

[alexbarwell]

Add to this the guys at the back of the grid get across the start line a couple of seconds later so already start the race effectively a couple of seconds back. How about the old le mans start where the drivers run across the track, then get in the car and take off out the side of the pit lane instead of along the length. Mixes things up a bit more and takes the immediate grid line up out of the equation. Not thinking in terms of Its a Knockout though

[WhiteBlue]

The lack of passing is not a function of the tracks in the first place. Its the fault of the car spec. Of course Monte cannot accept that because he sells cars. Get rid of the bloody downforce excess and it will sort itself out. Get rid of refuelling and it will get even better.

[megz]

Yeah, then we can have GP2 style running out of fuel on the last lap races, neat.