Recent races have highlighted a severe shortcoming in the current safety car rules.
First in Monaco Schuie made a cheeky overtake into the final corner, only to be handed a penalty becasue the specific wording of the rules were vague and left a grey area.This highlights that the rules are a) too complex and b) not defined clearly enough (although there has been a clarification following Monaco)The we come to Valencia where the situation is even more controversial. After an almight shunt, the safety car was deployed. Vettel had already passed it but Hamilton was coming up fast. He dithered a bit before finally passing it, leaving Alonso stuck behind it.At the heart of the situation I believe is the role the safety car is expected to play. Fundamentally it's a safety car. Not a pace car used to artifically generate excitement or change the order of the field (as often the case in the US). Its role therefore is to make the track safe for competitors and more importantly for marshals to do their job and clear the track of any incidents without fear of being hit by an out of control F1 car trying to make up a few tenthsThere were several incidents which were really quite dangerous and all could be avoided by having clearer safety car rules.First was the sight of Schumacher flying round at full speed (and as it turns out others were doing it even faster) in order to get in and out of the pits before the train came round again.Second was the sight of 20 cars all pitting at the same time. I was amazed there weren't any pit lane coming togethers.There was also the intention of Brawn to release Schumacher into the train of traffic as they believed would happen. Instead they were (rightly) given a red light and made to wait.Finally the restart seems just downright crazy. Racing from a line several corners from the start/finish straight while the safety car is potentially still on the track can only end in tears one day.So what can be done?First, the pit lane can be closed as soon as the SC board is shown. This was the rule a couple of years ago but was changed because it disadvantaged cars that were running low on fuel and were force to pit and take a penalty. In this day and age of no refuelling, there's no reason for the pit lane to be open except for accident damage. If you also close the *exit* of the pit lane while the safety car is out, meaning that teams could potentially lose many laps, they will only stop if it's a real emergency. This stops the crowded pitlane or unsafe release issues.Of course, closing the pitlane means less options for strategy and excitement, but it's for safety, right?
Second you have more than one safety car. Having two or three safety cars (or even more) is something that happens in other categories of racing (the Nurburgring 24hrs springs to mind for which one car is unworkable because of the lap lenth. They all deploy simultaneously at different points around the circuit and there's no overtaking for anyone. This stops anyone being too unfairly penalised (losing a whole lap) and ensures there's no cars moving at excessive speeds.
Finally, racing should be to/from the start/finish line, not arbitraty lines round the circuit. After a safety car period, the racing should be into the first corner and on the final lap cars just finish the race with no confusing rules..The best thing about these ideas is that they simplify everything, meaning not only is the racing safer but the viewer at home knows what's going on too, which is always nice.Driver aids are banned in F1 right? Wrong! In fact there are still alot of driver aids in F1 and they all work to spoil the racing by taking away the opportunity for the ture greats to really shine. Let me explain...
In a very interesting analysis of the Australian GP, Keith notes:
"First, aerodynamics is still a big problem and fully dry races are likely to be much more processional than what we saw today.
However, because all the cars at Melbourne started on intermediate tyres none of them were forced to use both dry tyre compounds. As a result we saw some drivers pit more than others and as a result lapped quicker on fresh tyres later in the race – creating the opportunity for racing.
In the dry at Bahrain we saw no major differences in strategy among the front runners because of the mandatory pit stop rule. Removing this rule, and the requirement for the top ten qualifiers to start on the tyres they set their fastest time on should, looks like a good way of improving the quality of racing in F1. The next few races should provide more evidence for whether this is a good idea or not."
I really can't see the point of the forced tyre stop and top 10 race-on-your-quali-tyre rules. All it does is force drivers to qualify and start the race on a soft compound and switch to a hard compound early on. Drivers then will just coast to the finish, holding station and settling for points (as they did in Bahrain).
Not only is it artificial, but it also takes away driver choice and the chance for them to do something different.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/03/28/melbourne-was-a-blast-but-f1s-aero-prob...
For me, the biggest legacy of refuelling has been to gift seven World Championships to a driver who isn’t particularly good at wheel-to-wheel racing, but transformed “overtaking into the pit lane” (i.e. gaining positions just by being in the pit lane at the right time) into the most important aspect of modern-day grand prix racing.
A very good piece on the refuelling vs strategy vs formula 1 chess debate.
See the whole article here:
http://doctorvee.co.uk/2010/03/18/bahrain-boring-blame-bernie-not-the-refuell...
There's also a rather good review of the Bahrain race here:
http://doctorvee.co.uk/2010/03/17/boring-bahrain-backlash/
Keith over at F1 Fanatic has decided to run a poll for whether compulsory pit stops should be introduced and the result is pretty conclusive.
The result is currently running at 86% saying drivers should NOT be forced to pit (out of some 2315 votes).
I was somewhat surprised and pleased at the one sided nature of the result. It's been clear to me for many years (and I've bored plenty of people about it too!) that refuelling is bad and flexible strategy is good. Sadly I doubt anyone will notice.
By forcing drivers to use a specific strategy (even if just through requiring them to use 2 compounds ot tyres), the FIA are reducing the variation in options, reducing driver choice and making things more predicatable and less exciting. There's nothing worse than the refuelling era "we'll hold station after the final stops" mentality which guarantees nothing happens at the end of the race unless it rains.
Pre-refuelling ban (with flexible tyre options), there were some cracking finishes to races - Jerez 1986, Silverstone 1987, Mexico 1990 being 3 that spring to mind. All of them were because of competing strategies of the tortoise vs hare. One driver on hard tyres eeking them out, another putting on a fresh set of boots and going for it.
Click the link to vote:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/01/18/should-drivers-be-forced-to-pit-poll/