What is wrong with the safety car rule?

[lkocev]

He did it by being so slow and so far behind that while Seb, Lou, Fred & Fil were past the OPEN pit lane Button was behind it when the SC came out, there was absolutely nothing clever about it, and no ability invovled other than his ability to be consistantly slower than his teammate in the same equipment.

If the SC was slightly faster out of the pits it would have picked up SV and then Button would have been ahead of all 4 of them... Why? because he is slow and the pits were open... that is not why any driver should win a race.

Islam, I really dont know what this hard-on for Button is about, but seriously, let it go. That is racing, sometimes things go your way, sometimes they don't. Button happened to be in the right place at the right time when the saftey car came out, maybe next time, he will be in the wrong place when a saftey car is deployed.

Button would have been silly NOT to make a pitstop when he did. The rules allow that, and you can't blame Button for exploiting them to their full potential. Your allowed to have your opinion of how you think a race should be won, no problem, but seriously, whats the problem anyhow? Button didn't beat your golden boy Lewis anyway?

I think there is good reason to close the pits in the current regulation, because cars are not refueled it means there shouldn't be a case where a driver must pit during a closed period, or run out of fuel. But the problem I have with that is that it takes away the 'luck of the draw' element, which I find interesting.

[myurr]

If the race leader gets hit by a puncture it is tough luck for him. Puncture is always bad news. He can have the asshole card in the current system as well depending of the scenario. So nothing changes but the bulk of the random drama that gets eliminated.

To me it is unacceptable for the safety car rules to further punish simple bad luck, particularly when it can be as severe as sending the race leader to the back of the grid. That is far worse than the bad luck Alonso had in the last race, which is the event that has prompted the discussion in the first place.

In my view you're throwing the baby out with the bath water and by trying to eliminate a small shuffling of the pack you are replacing it with drivers just being thrown completely out the race.

If the cars must go to the back of the field they simply pass a green pit exit light and proceed until they catch the field. If the field is in the process of passing the pits they will have to wait and go a lap down. So it is simple standard practice.

That assumes the cars are formed up behind the safety car, something which is unlikely. Take Hamilton in Valencia - he pitted for a new nose and was out again without losing a place. How would you have dealt with that? The pack took another two laps to form up, so you would either have let him leave under the green light and keep his place or you would have held him under a red light for about 4 to 5 minutes until the pack was fully formed and he could rejoin at the back of the pack and two laps down. Which would it be?

[stelman_iceman]

We all know the primary reason of SC deployment.. Secondary reason is also to protect cars from losing its racing position due to deployment, discourage teams & drivers from gaining position with harsh penalty that driver wont even try..F1 teams are spending millions just gain little performance boost and to lose it because of pit stop lottery..its UNACCEPTABLE..i think true F1 fan will agree..

to FIA,before adding new rules.. PLEASE try to sort out first your rule book..

[WhiteBlue]

To me it is unacceptable for the safety car rules to further punish simple bad luck, particularly when it can be as severe as sending the race leader to the back of the grid. That is far worse than the bad luck Alonso had in the last race, which is the event that has prompted the discussion in the first place.
In my view you're throwing the baby out with the bath water and by trying to eliminate a small shuffling of the pack you are replacing it with drivers just being thrown completely out the race.

This is your opinion and I respect that. You have constructed an extreme case which is applicable extremely seldom. As I have already said a similar case of bad luck can befall any car under todays safety car rules as well. Mercedes just demonstrated it on Sunday with Schumacher going from three to last. The difference in my scenario is that the bad luck will not be a regular occurrence. Applied to last Sunday nobody would have suffered. So that way I'm going to keep a total sporting fairness in most safety car events plus the bad luck hits much fewer drivers. I guess we are going to disagree on the the quality of the rule. At least I think I have listened to all your points and do not need to repeat them.

That assumes the cars are formed up behind the safety car, something which is unlikely. Take Hamilton in Valencia - he pitted for a new nose and was out again without losing a place. How would you have dealt with that? The pack took another two laps to form up, so you would either have let him leave under the green light and keep his place or you would have held him under a red light for about 4 to 5 minutes until the pack was fully formed and he could rejoin at the back of the pack and two laps down. Which would it be?

If the pack isn't formed and a straggler joins somewhere in the middle he must fall back and let the the other cars pass to take his position. It is the same procedure when a car cannot hold the safety car pace due to a defect. Alternatively his team can help him exit the pits when he the tail goes by. It is not rally a problem. As pitting is generally prohibited there will be no or very little confusion. With a closed pit lane safety cars will be a very relaxed issue.

[myurr]

As we're just going to go round and round on who would do better in which situation, I'll focus instead on the practicalities of your solution:

That assumes the cars are formed up behind the safety car, something which is unlikely. Take Hamilton in Valencia - he pitted for a new nose and was out again without losing a place. How would you have dealt with that? The pack took another two laps to form up, so you would either have let him leave under the green light and keep his place or you would have held him under a red light for about 4 to 5 minutes until the pack was fully formed and he could rejoin at the back of the pack and two laps down. Which would it be?

If the pack isn't formed and a straggler joins somewhere in the middle he must fall back and let the the other cars pass to take his position. It is the same procedure when a car cannot hold the safety car pace due to a defect. Alternatively his team can help him exit the pits when he the tail goes by. It is not rally a problem. As pitting is generally prohibited there will be no or very little confusion. With a closed pit lane safety cars will be a very relaxed issue.

Taking the case of a safety car in the latter stages of a race:

On lap one when damaged cars are pitting the pack is spread round the entire lap. They are all going to pit and exit before the safety car has formed any kind of train and possibly before the safety car has even picked up the leader.

Lap two cars are starting to form up behind the safety car and are being released until the leader of the race is the lead car behind the SC.

Lap four all cars are now likely formed up behind the safety car.

1. At which point do you expect cars that had to pit for damage to be released from the pits? Lap 1, 2, 4?
2. If cars are simply released when they're able and then have to let other cars past until they're at the back of the pack:
a) who is responsible for policing the positions?
b) what happens with lapped cars? Do drivers form up in front of them or behind them? If behind do they drop a lap behind or are they effectively just behind them and about to lap them so that the back markers will be blue flagged at the restart?
c) what happens if / when cars are allowed to unlap themselves? Do they go to the back of the pack or do the cars that pitted have to drop behind them?

Taking another hypothetical situation, that has a solid basis in reality so isn't an edge case but is quite likely, can we look at the race in Turkey and specifically the incident between Vettel and Webber. I know we apportion blame differently but hopefully we can be objective about what should happen.

In this incident Webber was able to pit, replace his punctured wheel, and then carry on having lost only two places. Hypothetically speaking if a SC was required to clear Vettel's car or debris from the track do you think it right that Webber should have been dropped to the back of the grid rather than being able to carry on to a podium finish? If you do, do you believe that Webber would have continued to the end of the race or just retired and saved the engine and gearbox?

I doubt you will agree with the answers I would give to those points, but hopefully you can at least see why I have a big problem with your proposed solution and wish to carry on questioning it.

[WhiteBlue]

Taking the case of a safety car in the latter stages of a race:

On lap one when damaged cars are pitting the pack is spread round the entire lap. They are all going to pit and exit before the safety car has formed any kind of train and possibly before the safety car has even picked up the leader.

Lap two cars are starting to form up behind the safety car and are being released until the leader of the race is the lead car behind the SC.

Lap four all cars are now likely formed up behind the safety car.

1. At which point do you expect cars that had to pit for damage to be released from the pits? Lap 1, 2, 4?
2. If cars are simply released when they're able and then have to let other cars past until they're at the back of the pack:
a) who is responsible for policing the positions?
b) what happens with lapped cars? Do drivers form up in front of them or behind them? If behind do they drop a lap behind or are they effectively just behind them and about to lap them so that the back markers will be blue flagged at the restart?
c) what happens if / when cars are allowed to unlap themselves? Do they go to the back of the pack or do the cars that pitted have to drop behind them?

The general principle is that all cars drop the pace by at least 20% and no passing is allowed except for the safety car as long as it has not found the leader and damaged cars that try to crawl back. So all cars stay in exactly the same order as they are at the begin of the safety car. This obviously includes all lapped cars as there is no point to allow them to unlap themselves. We want to avoid any lucky advantages!

Now we make an assumption about damaged cars. Lets say we have two damaged cars which have made it back under their own steam. One car is on the race lap and the other one is one lap down. There are also several other cars which are one or more laps down.

We now assume that the car on the race lap finishes repairs before the last unlapped car has passed the pits. It waits until the last unlaped car comes along and joins the traffic directly behind the last unlapped car. If the repairs take longer and he looses a lap in the pits he joins behind the last car which is one lap back, and so on.

Now we look at the second car which is already a lap down. Again the repairs are made and the last car on a common lap is identified. Let us say this is a car which is three laps down. Our driver gets the target car from his team and he joins right behind that car.

Race control checks that all cars have slipped into the right places and if not the cars are ordered to fall back or overtake until they have taken the correct positions. Teams keep their drivers informed which cars they are racing for the restart.

Lapped cars have to observe blue flags the same way on a re-start as during the race. They have to take particular care to let all cars on the race lap pass but the drivers in the same lap as the leaders are exactly where they have been before the safety car in terms of lapped drivers they have to pass. The only exception may be additional cars that have been repaired.

Taking another hypothetical situation, that has a solid basis in reality so isn't an edge case but is quite likely, can we look at the race in Turkey and specifically the incident between Vettel and Webber. I know we apportion blame differently but hopefully we can be objective about what should happen.

In this incident Webber was able to pit, replace his punctured wheel, and then carry on having lost only two places. Hypothetically speaking if a SC was required to clear Vettel's car or debris from the track do you think it right that Webber should have been dropped to the back of the grid rather than being able to carry on to a podium finish? If you do, do you believe that Webber would have continued to the end of the race or just retired and saved the engine and gearbox?

I doubt you will agree with the answers I would give to those points, but hopefully you can at least see why I have a big problem with your proposed solution and wish to carry on questioning it.

First you see that many accidents can be cleared without a safety car. And if your hypothetical situation had occurred then the procedure would have applied as described. Webber would have had the choice to run the safety car without front wing or incur the penalty. If option two was necessary it would be simply a case of back luck because a safety car event cannot be controlled. You have to let some guys suffer to keep the race safe.

[ISLAMATRON]

He did it by being so slow and so far behind that while Seb, Lou, Fred & Fil were past the OPEN pit lane Button was behind it when the SC came out, there was absolutely nothing clever about it, and no ability invovled other than his ability to be consistantly slower than his teammate in the same equipment.

If the SC was slightly faster out of the pits it would have picked up SV and then Button would have been ahead of all 4 of them... Why? because he is slow and the pits were open... that is not why any driver should win a race.

Islam, I really dont know what this hard-on for Button is about, but seriously, let it go. That is racing, sometimes things go your way, sometimes they don't. Button happened to be in the right place at the right time when the saftey car came out, maybe next time, he will be in the wrong place when a saftey car is deployed.

Button would have been silly NOT to make a pitstop when he did. The rules allow that, and you can't blame Button for exploiting them to their full potential. Your allowed to have your opinion of how you think a race should be won, no problem, but seriously, whats the problem anyhow? Button didn't beat your golden boy Lewis anyway?

I think there is good reason to close the pits in the current regulation, because cars are not refueled it means there shouldn't be a case where a driver must pit during a closed period, or run out of fuel. But the problem I have with that is that it takes away the 'luck of the draw' element, which I find interesting.

Yes, Button took advantage of his inability to keep up with the leaders and was in the right place right time because of that, not because of anything clever or superior in his driving. I have no problem with JB, other than that he is slower than retarded molasses, and wasting a good seat. No doubt he would have been foolish to do anything other than pit when he did, I'm not saying what he did was wrong, I'm saying the pits being open for him to do so is wrong.

I'm not interested in who is the luckiest, or in the right place right time, I am interested in watching the best drivers battle it out for the win and the open pits scenario destroyed any oppurtunity for us to see a SV vs LH battle or a LH vs FA battle, instead I was forced to watch an impotent Button be made a fool of by Kobay again.

The 'luck of the draw" element does nothing for me... I'd rather see really good close racing, or even a dominent driver blast away from the field, if I wanted to see "luck of the draw" I'd go to the casino and watch the old people lose their life savings and medicine money... that would be much more entertaining.

[myurr]

Taking another hypothetical situation, that has a solid basis in reality so isn't an edge case but is quite likely, can we look at the race in Turkey and specifically the incident between Vettel and Webber. I know we apportion blame differently but hopefully we can be objective about what should happen.

In this incident Webber was able to pit, replace his punctured wheel, and then carry on having lost only two places. Hypothetically speaking if a SC was required to clear Vettel's car or debris from the track do you think it right that Webber should have been dropped to the back of the grid rather than being able to carry on to a podium finish? If you do, do you believe that Webber would have continued to the end of the race or just retired and saved the engine and gearbox?

I doubt you will agree with the answers I would give to those points, but hopefully you can at least see why I have a big problem with your proposed solution and wish to carry on questioning it.

First you see that many accidents can be cleared without a safety car. And if your hypothetical situation had occurred then the procedure would have applied as described. Webber would have had the choice to run the safety car without front wing or incur the penalty. If option two was necessary it would be simply a case of back luck because a safety car event cannot be controlled. You have to let some guys suffer to keep the race safe.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree then. Your explanation of what would happen (not quoted for sake of length) just seems like an unwieldy mess where you'd end up with cars trying to swap position behind the safety car and providing a large increase in workload for the race director during this period. I know what you're trying to achieve and agree with your aims, but feel that your solution is no better than the current solution.

I also think that in Webber's situation it would be unacceptable that the difference to his race of being either 3rd or at the back of the grid should hinge on the random luck of whether a safety car happens to be deployed or not. In this case you'd have people questioning whether or not the safety car was really needed and you'd have cars simply retiring and not bothering to race, and that is not a good situation to be in and is not good for the fans. If you can accept that safety cars sometimes have winners and losers then as flawed as it is I do feel the current solution is as good or better to that proposed. It is far less complicated and doesn't place additional burden on race control at what is already a very busy period for them.

[timbo]

Crazy idea.
What if we have a mandatory pit-stop windows as in DTM.
If an SC appears during the window, everybody HAS to pit under SC.
Race order is frozen.

[ISLAMATRON]

Then we lose the spectacle of competitive pit stops and alternate strategies

[timbo]

Then we lose the spectacle of competitive pit stops and alternate strategies

Well, with no refuelling and mandatory usage of option/primary tyre we already basicly have only two strategies.
We would not loose competitive pit-stops. If there's no SC, nothing changes, as most of the time every car in front pits within 3-5 laps between each other.
Where is a problem of those who pitted just before SC loosing groud compared to those who would pit under SC... Hmm... Not good.

[komninosm]

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.

Hmm, with no refueling now that sounds kinda fair. I kinda feel it would be better if no one was tempted to pit at all. Only those with serious damage.

What everyone here needs to remember is that a SC is inherently unfair to some. For example lets say Hamilton and Vettel are fighting closely for first place and Vettel pits, then he is 25 seconds behind Hamilton and a SC comes out, negating that gap to 1 sec. That's not fair, but we have to live with it.
Ferrari should stfu and stop their hypocrisy. [-X :^o

[komninosm]

He did it by being so slow and so far behind that while Seb, Lou, Fred & Fil were past the OPEN pit lane Button was behind it when the SC came out, there was absolutely nothing clever about it, and no ability invovled other than his ability to be consistantly slower than his teammate in the same equipment.

If the SC was slightly faster out of the pits it would have picked up SV and then Button would have been ahead of all 4 of them... Why? because he is slow and the pits were open... that is not why any driver should win a race.

Islam, I really dont know what this hard-on for Button is about, but seriously, let it go. That is racing, sometimes things go your way, sometimes they don't. Button happened to be in the right place at the right time when the saftey car came out, maybe next time, he will be in the wrong place when a saftey car is deployed.

Button would have been silly NOT to make a pitstop when he did. The rules allow that, and you can't blame Button for exploiting them to their full potential. Your allowed to have your opinion of how you think a race should be won, no problem, but seriously, whats the problem anyhow? Button didn't beat your golden boy Lewis anyway?

I think there is good reason to close the pits in the current regulation, because cars are not refueled it means there shouldn't be a case where a driver must pit during a closed period, or run out of fuel. But the problem I have with that is that it takes away the 'luck of the draw' element, which I find interesting.

He's not blaming Button for anything. He's saying there was no involvement of exceptionally smart thinking and decision-making. It was dumb luck and I agree.

Overall I think Button is very much incosistent like Webber and Hamilton fast like Vettel. It seems the team have a nice mirror match going.

[myurr]

Overall I think Button is very much incosistent like Webber and Hamilton fast like Vettel. It seems the team have a nice mirror match going.

Can't really compare them. Button doesn't seem to make the same mistakes as Webber when trying to come through the field, has good race pace pretty consistently, he's just inconsistent in qualifying. And I don't think Vettel is anywhere near as good at close racing or coming through the field as Hamilton, even if they're similar in pace when at the front of the pack. If I had to go with either line up in my team I'd go with the McLaren line up, probably even in preference to a Ham/Vet lineup (don't think they'd work all that well together).

But then I probably would say that being an English McLaren fan.

[ISLAMATRON]

That is because Button does not come thru the field He just looks for Kobayashi and sits behind him for the rest of the race.