What is wrong with the safety car rule?

[Richard]

guys who didn't pit would have to come in, pit and most probably loose against others.

Lets think about this one.

1. Cars A&B close to each other when SC deployed.
2. Car A stays on track
3. Car B pits. A pit stop normally cost 25 sec, say a drive though costs 15? Possibly only 10 seconds because A is behind the slow SC.
4. B rejoins several places down the race order.
5. The cars bunch up, so B is able to regain time, say only 2 seconds behind A
6. Race restarts
7. B does a drive though so he loses a few more places and say 15 seconds
8. A is only 17-18 seconds ahead of B, not enough for a pit stop.

You’re correct, a drive though wouldn’t be enough. Maybe the only clear cut option is to make cars that stop go back to the back of the pack?

[timbo]

You’re correct, a drive though wouldn’t be enough. Maybe the only clear cut option is to make cars that stop go back to the back of the pack?

Even then it also depends on how big is the pack. After the restart it would be close. Or if for whatever reason there's only 10 cars left in the race it would be closer once again.
Also, immediately after drive-thru the car would be on the open track, while those in the pack are in the melee mode and not so fast.
Stop-and-go would be a logical thing, but as you said there would be problems if more than one car has to stop.
But, what about penalty limiter?

[myurr]

Stop-and-go would be a logical thing, but as you said there would be problems if more than one car has to stop.
But, what about penalty limiter?

You couldn't have cars going down the pit lane at different speeds - it's dangerous and unfair on those other cars that don't have to use the slower limit.

I'm not suggesting the current rules are perfect, far from it, merely trying to point out that there are serious compromises with the proposed solution of just shutting the pit lane. Hence disliking people declaring it as an open / shut case and 'simple'.

In their effort to stop the situation that happened with Alonso they would simply introduce a raft of other situations that are unfair on other drivers.

[timbo]

Stop-and-go would be a logical thing, but as you said there would be problems if more than one car has to stop.
But, what about penalty limiter?

You couldn't have cars going down the pit lane at different speeds - it's dangerous and unfair on those other cars that don't have to use the slower limit.

I'm not suggesting the current rules are perfect, far from it, merely trying to point out that there are serious compromises with the proposed solution of just shutting the pit lane. Hence disliking people declaring it as an open / shut case and 'simple'.

In their effort to stop the situation that happened with Alonso they would simply introduce a raft of other situations that are unfair on other drivers.

With no refuelling closed pit-lane IS simpler, than what we have now. Most of the time there's no need to pit under safety car as tyres can handle a few more laps at SC speeds.

[WhiteBlue]

I'm not suggesting the current rules are perfect, far from it, merely trying to point out that there are serious compromises with the proposed solution of just shutting the pit lane. Hence disliking people declaring it as an open / shut case and 'simple'.

IMO its a question of what is the better basic approach. I'm not necessarily advocating to close the pit lane totally but I'm aiming to remove the chance of "free" pit stops entirely. In my view "free" pit stops are counter productive to the safety because they invite to race despite all efforts to neutralize the race.

I'm completely open on how the suppression of "free" pit stops is achieved. Obviously it has to be well thought out or you replace one chaos with another.

[timbo]

Problem with present SC rules is that stopping under a SC is highly beneficial.
That can promote dangerous situations, even without anybody breaching the rules.
Rules must be amended in a way to reduce a benefit of pitting under a SC.

[ISLAMATRON]

close the pits... problem solved

[komninosm]

For me the only change I would make would be for the safety car to wait at the end of the pit lane for the race leader and that all cars should form up at that point. If you're not the race leader you're allowed to pass the safety car.

Isn't that already the case? I'm confused.
Why did Ferrari not pass the SC?

[WhiteBlue]

Problem with present SC rules is that stopping under a SC is highly beneficial.
That can promote dangerous situations, even without anybody breaching the rules.
Rules must be amended in a way to reduce a benefit of pitting under a SC.

We have seen in the case of Schumacher in Valencia how he did not get the benefit of a "free" pit stop. So basically all you have to do is close the pit exit on every car so long until the main field of cars has past the pits. If there is no such thing as a field the closure should last long enough to loose one lap. That should make sure they cannot speculate on an advantage. Am I making a mistake there?

[ESPImperium]

One other thing id like to see dont is banning of stacking in the pits like what Ferarri have became known for. Only allow teams to pit one car at a time.

My rules would be this:
1) Pitting uneder saftey cars are permitted as pit entry is open
2) However, a pit exit is closed
3) All cars pitting would have to wait at the end of the pit lane untill the first full lap of the saftey car period has elapsed and go one lap down.
4) If a car pits in any other lap of a SC period, they will also have to wait for one whole lap, and also go one lap down.
5) Cars that have damage must pit, no ifs-and-buts.
6) Pit Lane Stacking is outlawed, one car per pit box at a time, if a second car hasnt reaced the S2 timing line by the time the car has got to the pit entrance, a team can pit 2 cars then. This rule also is in place for a change of climactic conditions.
7) If a SC is called and you are pitting in, you follow rule 3, harsh but safe.
8) All cars must drive to a speed of 70% slower than the pole time reaching the pit lane. So if its a one minuite twenty lap for pole, drivers must drive to a time of 2 minuites sixteen untill they pick up the saftey car.
9) SC periods will start in race order, and re-shuffles will start from the second of a SC period.
10) Drivers must start racing pace when a SC period ends from a line 200 metres from the start of the SC line, where cars can over take from in all but the last lap of the race.

With this, you would expect BMW Sauber to have scored their "second ever" win with Kimui at the weekend, Altho Shumi would have been leading him for 2 laps under SC conditions, and posibly would have won, but Kimuis strategy may have paid off.

I feel this could make an freak result posible, and if re-fueling was re-introduced, a freak result like this would not only throw championship battles in the air for a race or two, it could also decide them also. Freak results i am all for.

[jason.parker.86]

Im sorry but the above is too complicated! They should do the following:

If SC lights come on dash the cars position is FROZEN. Cars can pit under the SC and they are allowed to overtake for position as long as they DO NOT go over a certain speed.

Lets not forget, the WHOLE idea a safety car is to protect the drivers and track marshalls.

Making it simple would not only be good for F1, but also be good for the viewers as we would not have to spend days on forums arguing who was right and wrong!

[timbo]

We have seen in the case of Schumacher in Valencia how he did not get the benefit of a "free" pit stop. So basically all you have to do is close the pit exit on every car so long until the main field of cars has past the pits. If there is no such thing as a field the closure should last long enough to loose one lap. That should make sure they cannot speculate on an advantage. Am I making a mistake there?

Schu's problem was that team also put him on wrong tyre while everybody who needed a pit pitted (same goes for both Ferrari's). While, if a single driver pits and every other needs a stop (within a few laps after SC) he would most probably gain advantage even if he rejoins last.
OTOH, loosing a lap is too severe.
There must be an additional but adequate penalty for pitting under SC.
Stop-and-go would be ideal.

Also, another matter is how long race control takes to examine even obvious infringements. Even jump-starts (Alonso and Petrov)!
Something has to be done about that to.

[WhiteBlue]

if a single driver pits and every other needs a stop (within a few laps after SC) he would most probably gain advantage even if he rejoins last.
OTOH, loosing a lap is too severe.
There must be an additional but adequate penalty for pitting under SC.
Stop-and-go would be ideal.

IMO there is no problem for me if pitting under safety car carries a clear disadvantage. It would lead to a minimization of the practice. That is what you want. You automatically have a minimum of hassle to sort any penalties out. After all the standard situation is still that drivers regularly do have no need to pit during a safety car and should not make life more difficult for race control.

Also, another matter is how long race control takes to examine even obvious infringements. Even jump-starts (Alonso and Petrov)! Something has to be done about that to.

There is a solid argument that Race Control should have better tools so that they do not have to be looking out for infringements, but rather reacting to electronic flagging of any and every transgression. With modern GPS technology there is no reason why all of this cannot be analysed easily and instantly. I am told that the only thing standing in the way of Race Control getting all this stuff is cost: everyone wants the technology, but no-one wants to pay. Fair enough, then we will just have to go on arguing every time there is a problem…

Just a question of money as Joe Saward explained. If the teams want to pay for it? Bernie probably will not. And the FiA would add it to the license cost if they have to pay.

[timbo]

IMO there is no problem for me if pitting under safety car carries a clear disadvantage. It would lead to a minimization of the practice. That is what you want. You automatically have a minimum of hassle to sort any penalties out. After all the standard situation is still that drivers regularly do have no need to pit during a safety car and should not make life more difficult for race control.

Well, one lap is too much. And what if you really do need to stop? Like with a puncture?

Just a question of money as Joe Saward explained. If the teams want to pay for it? Bernie probably will not. And the FiA would add it to the license cost if they have to pay.

I heard that next year teams would actually pay for GPS and meteo services. Question is would Bernie want to share a slice to make a proper race control?

[myurr]

I feel this could make an freak result posible, and if re-fueling was re-introduced, a freak result like this would not only throw championship battles in the air for a race or two, it could also decide them also. Freak results i am all for.

Everyone else is trying to get rid of the freak results, not make them freakier!

Also in your scenario would Hamilton have been forced to pit for a new front wing in the last race, even though he could have continued and pitted with the others after the pit stop period? When would someone be forced to pit, how damaged must their car be?