No more pit lane closures @ safety cars

[D'Leh]

The way it's phrased now leaves quite some room for interpretation. Hopefully the stewards decisions will be more consistent then last years. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for there being no severe crash in the first place and thus no safety car deployments at all. That would most likely save us from a lot of foul-crying.

[shir0]

Actually D'Leh, you'd be surprised that as far as the SAFETY CAR articles are concerned, nothing too critical has changed (except for the the deletion of the PITLANE CLOSURE article). The reason why I think you're correct that it is now open for too loose an interpretation is that, now, there is no single EXTREMELY OBVIOUS infraction that could be made by a sane F1 driver during safety car periods...which is to be left with no other option but to pit for fuel.

We now have another big window where stewards could play a big role in pissing off quite a large number of fans.

[Miguel]

Also, let's be honest. The lottery wasn't really that bad. Nobody lost his well deserved victory to a situation like that. Plus a safety car will always cause some serious mixup. Some profit, others suffer. It's racing, unpredictable things can happen. That's what makes it exciting.

With a world championship so tight, I think both Fernando (Canada 2007) and Felipe (Singapore 2008) could say that they didn't win that year due to safety car incidents. You can say that Fernando seemed to be driving a lawnmower in Montreal, but it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have gotten two additional points were he not given that stop and go penalty.

EDIT: There sure are other issues why they didn't win (i.e. Fuji crash or Silverstone), but one point off the winner?

[myurr]

With a world championship so tight, I think both Fernando (Canada 2007) and Felipe (Singapore 2008) could say that they didn't win that year due to safety car incidents. You can say that Fernando seemed to be driving a lawnmower in Montreal, but it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have gotten two additional points were he not given that stop and go penalty.

EDIT: There sure are other issues why they didn't win (i.e. Fuji crash or Silverstone), but one point off the winner?

Nothing was stopping Fernando carrying a couple of laps more fuel like some other drivers were, it was his decision not to have a safety margin.

And as for Felipe I think the fact that he drove off with fuel hose still attached was actually his bigger problem at Singapore. So again that's not a terribly great example.

[Miguel]

Nothing was stopping Fernando carrying a couple of laps more fuel like some other drivers were, it was his decision not to have a safety margin.

He didn't have that choice at McLaren. Furthermore, McLaren decided to bring Hamilton in the lap before. And if you say that nothing stopped Fernando from going to the pits that same lap... then, sorry, that's further than I'm willing to go.

I know a few people think that given the safety car rules all drivers should carry a bail out amount of fuel. However, we've seen Rosberg caught (twice or three times at least), we've seen Rubens caught, and we've seen other drivers too. The thing is, the rules don't specify for how long the pit lane will stay closed, so there is no safe amount of fuel. What happens if you are at spa, with 7km/lap and an unreasonable fuel penalty? Are you going to give all your opponents 3 tenths per lap? 5 tenths maybe?

[myurr]

He didn't have that choice at McLaren. Furthermore, McLaren decided to bring Hamilton in the lap before. And if you say that nothing stopped Fernando from going to the pits that same lap... then, sorry, that's further than I'm willing to go.

I know a few people think that given the safety car rules all drivers should carry a bail out amount of fuel. However, we've seen Rosberg caught (twice or three times at least), we've seen Rubens caught, and we've seen other drivers too. The thing is, the rules don't specify for how long the pit lane will stay closed, so there is no safe amount of fuel. What happens if you are at spa, with 7km/lap and an unreasonable fuel penalty? Are you going to give all your opponents 3 tenths per lap? 5 tenths maybe?

But that's the gamble they are then taking, that they won't get caught out. Otherwise you're going to be sitting pretty when they all get their drive through penalties.

It would help if the FIA put a limit on the number of laps before the pit lane reopened, and that has to be better than the rubbish they've put forward instead. Imagine that the safety car comes out at the worst possible time and cars in positions 1 3 5 7 9 etc. all get 10 second penalties. So the race ends and no one has a clue what the result was. That's just an appalling situation.

Far better for the FIA to say that the pit lane will always open within 5 laps and that all drivers can then carry that spare fuel. Those that choose not to cannot then grumble when their gamble doesn't pay off.

[Miguel]

The thing about times is that they have been applied before. I can at least remember that the 1994 Japanese grand prix was decided like that. That race was split in two, and Schumacher finished the first part in first position, with an advantage of a couple of seconds over Damon Hill. In the end, Damon Hill won by a fraction on aggregate times. I don't think this would be much different, although I agree it would just obfuscate thngs.

Regarding the pitlane penalties and onboard fuel, I just find absolutely contradicting that cars made the ligtest possible and then get ballast to barely go above 605 kg with driver and liquids other than fuel carry spare laps. Weight is a terrible penalty, and my racing instinct tells me that it's just wrong to carry fuel "just in case". That's what I do when I drive. I have the feeling Colin Chapman would never ever carry fuel "just in case". I know I put a controversial example, but my heart keeps telling me "spare fuel? WTF!" I'm sure the guys at Honda that devised the double bladder fuel tank think the same way

[Rob W]

A car whose wheels are changed after the three-minute signal no longer has to start from the back of the grid nor suffer a drive-through penalty. Instead, a mere ten-second penalty (added to the time at the end of the race) will be applied.

A penalty has now been defined for anyone who refuels during a race suspension despite not being in the pit lane when the suspension was triggered. The penalty is ten seconds of time.

Thanks for the detailed post WhiteBlue. As also mentioned by others here, I am a bit disappointed in these penalties though - not that they're penalties, but that they're applied after the race. This sort of end-result editing is what ruins sporting spectacle. As a baseline aspect of entertainment and sport - the person/team who win the game live should remain the victor... not have to wait to tally up all of the penalties dished out during the race for an amended finishing order.

The ten second penalty clauses should only be used for incidents/events happening right near the end of the race.

[myurr]

The thing about times is that they have been applied before. I can at least remember that the 1994 Japanese grand prix was decided like that. That race was split in two, and Schumacher finished the first part in first position, with an advantage of a couple of seconds over Damon Hill. In the end, Damon Hill won by a fraction on aggregate times. I don't think this would be much different, although I agree it would just obfuscate thngs.

Regarding the pitlane penalties and onboard fuel, I just find absolutely contradicting that cars made the ligtest possible and then get ballast to barely go above 605 kg with driver and liquids other than fuel carry spare laps. Weight is a terrible penalty, and my racing instinct tells me that it's just wrong to carry fuel "just in case". That's what I do when I drive. I have the feeling Colin Chapman would never ever carry fuel "just in case". I know I put a controversial example, but my heart keeps telling me "spare fuel? WTF!" I'm sure the guys at Honda that devised the double bladder fuel tank think the same way

In general I have the same reaction - but McLaren and Ferrari at least were carrying that spare fuel last season. And that's a better solution, in my eyes, to having a situation where by Alonso overtakes Massa for the lead (for example) but only gets 9.5 seconds up the track before the end of the race and ends up second due to an earlier time penalty.

If one car is affected like that then it wouldn't be so bad, but if you have four or five cars affected, all getting in the way of other cars due to field spread etc. then you end up with the awful combination of a lottery and not knowing the results as the cars cross the line.

I'd even rather they all had to hit the pit lane limiter when entering a waved yellow section if the safety car has been deployed, or some such, that would force them to slow down. Or a rule that stated explicitly that if a driver does an Alonso (admittedly a long time ago, but it was the incident that first made me dislike him) and charges into a waved yellow section at full speed just hoping that there isn't a car in the way, then he is excluded from the championship and banned for the rest of the season.

Anything but arbitrary FIA penalties being handed out that affect the post race results.

[D'Leh]

Nothing was stopping Fernando carrying a couple of laps more fuel like some other drivers were, it was his decision not to have a safety margin.

He didn't have that choice at McLaren.

Yeah that (Canada 07) was the only time McLaren and Ferrari got caught by that rule. After that it never happened to them again. And guess what, that was also the first race the rule was in effect. The according regs had been changed just before Canada 07.
Also Fernando never really blamed that penalty as the reason for him not clinching the title. Hungary and Japan were much more avoidable.

And Felipe neither lost his race nor his championship because of that rule. His team screwed up big time. You cannot seriously try to use that as a justification to change the rule.

Looking at Rosberg in the same race shows, that despite the penalty it was still possible to score a podium. Of course it was a bit lucky considering the circumstances. But obviously those who were pretending the rule would be totally unfair and destroying your race if it was imposed on you weren't quite right.

edit:
Btw Singapore unveiled another flaw in the regs actually. The timing of the application of the rules could also be crucial for their effect. Most people didn't really notice that. Had Rosberg been penalized earlier the result would have been different probably. So even with rules that seemingly have no space for interpretation the stewards can still have a certain impact. So the old rule wasn't perfect either.

[timbo]

Jeez... I lost track what this all is about. What is the arguement about?
Rules now do not describe that pit-lane is closed when SC is deployed. Drivers may pit when they want and the only thing they should care is leaving pit-lane under green (hello, Lewis ).
10 second penalty is added if driver is refuelled under race-suspension (red flag). IMO that is too little, however there's drive-thru penalty for entering pit-lane, so I guess that means drive-thru+10 seconds, which is OK.

[myurr]

If that is the case then that is fine - from the way earlier posts were making it sound it was the same as last year except instead of the stop and go penalty they were going to add 10 seconds to their time.

What you've written doesn't make it sound too bad, although I'm going to guess (rather than bother to go read - hell I'm a programmer, we don't read documentation!!) that the 10 second penalty is also going to apply if a driver is deemed to have driven dangerously.

If that is the case then it sounds like another one of those fantastic grey areas that the FIA are so good at policing...

[shir0]

yep...charlie just confirmed the safety car rule change:

...The only difference is we intend to implement a minimum time back to the pits. When we deploy the safety car, the message will go to all the cars, which will then have a “safety car” mode on their ECUs. As soon as that message gets to the car, it’ll know where it is on the circuit, and it’ll calculate a minimum time for the driver to get back to the pits. The driver will have to respect this and the information will be displayed on his dashboard.

If you remember, the reason we closed the pit entry was to remove the incentive for the driver to come back to his pit quickly. That’s gone now, as you won’t be able to reach the pits any quicker than your dashboard display allows you to.

So...all I can glean from what Charlie said is that they've devised some kind of technical means to prevent a "race to the pits" scenario and police the rule at the same time using the cars' onboard SECU.

Still...he did not say that they've devised any means to prevent the same "race to the pits" scenario while the drivers are anticipating the safety car release. This still leaves a major gray-area in rules which will be subject to much controversial interpretations.

[Miguel]

Still...he did not say that they've devised any means to prevent the same "race to the pits" scenario while the drivers are anticipating the safety car release. This still leaves a major gray-area in rules which will be subject to much controversial interpretations.

I don't think it's such a mayor gray area. And I'll tell you why. Before the safety car is deployed, all cars go full-speed through the track, with the exception where yellow flags are waved. And in any case cars go pretty fast there too. Even today. So this new rule, should it work as intended, would result in less of a lottery than it is today, while eliminate part of the risk there was before the "lottery car".

[ISLAMATRON]

Would be so much simpler if as soon as the double yellow flag(yes an american racing term for SC sign, full course yellow) is waved everyone must deploy their pit speed limiter. Simply done. Everyone maintains relative position and no calculation have to be made or messed up... and most importantly nobody speeding thru an accident zone a la Alonso at brazil.