Scheduled Wet Races

[epitaf]

I love watching wet races, I think everyone enjoys them so long as it doesn't end up all Malaysia like. Different drivers are better in the wet and different cars are more suited to wet conditions. Just as some drivers and cars suit some "shape" tracks, this could be another test for the team to make it a more "complete" challenge to win the championship.

What do people think about installing sprinklers at the side of the track to maintain the track at a level of "dampness". I think this could be managed to maintain "safe" limits on the amount of grip.

Obviously laying down kilometres of sprinklers and the amount of water involved would be pretty extreme, so it's not really a realistic proposal... but would you like to see scheduled wet races?

[Giblet]

Well, Paul Ricard circuit is capable of making portions (if not all of it) wet on demand, as it is a test track first and foremost.

We tend to get 1-3 wet races per year anyways, and part of what makes them so exciting is the calls that the team makes for when to switch tires and such.

I don't think it is a good idea as the water does make it more dangerous for the drivers, and if it is expected, the teams will just crank the downforce and send them out. Not very exciting for the teams, stressful for the drivers.

[TheMinister]

I have to agree with epitaf- it is a lot more entertaining watching wet races- especially when the track is becoming wet or drying. It allows driver skill to become more important, and we get to see more audacious overtaking moves- which is essentially taking to an extreme the rule changes that keep getting put in place (ie no traction control).

Whilst making tracks wet on purpose seems like a bit of a crazy idea, perhaps Bernie could just rejig the calendar to give us a few more wet races. If he were to move places where rain is often torrentially race ending (eg malaysia) into drier months and places that provide dampening/drying tracks (eg silverstone) into wetter months we could see more wet races but less rained-off races.

It's all very well saying it's not as safe for the drivers, as they do crash more often in the wet, but this is something that has always annoyed me- normal cars don't stop due to safety even in a downpour, so why should F1 cars? If the car crashes it is because either a) the driver went too fast or b) it aquaplaned.
I would like to see some kind of monsoon tires that prevent aquaplaning (didn't we used to have those back in the 90s?) so the race can continue in all weathers (visibility permitting) and drivers will then have to be responsible for going at a safe speed.

[Giblet]

I have to agree with epitaf- it is a lot more entertaining watching wet races- especially when the track is becoming wet or drying. It allows driver skill to become more important, and we get to see more audacious overtaking moves- which is essentially taking to an extreme the rule changes that keep getting put in place (ie no traction control).

There is no traction control at all. Wet or dry you can't mash the throttle, or you will spin. Driver skill becomes more important, rendering the qualities of the car virtually useless as well

Whilst making tracks wet on purpose seems like a bit of a crazy idea, perhaps Bernie could just rejig the calendar to give us a few more wet races. If he were to move places where rain is often torrentially race ending (eg malaysia) into drier months and places that provide dampening/drying tracks (eg silverstone) into wetter months we could see more wet races but less rained-off races.

So when we get a few cancelled races because they were rained out due to too much rain, the idea won't seem so smart then.

It's all very well saying it's not as safe for the drivers, as they do crash more often in the wet, but this is something that has always annoyed me- normal cars don't stop due to safety even in a downpour, so why should F1 cars? If the car crashes it is because either a) the driver went too fast or b) it aquaplaned.
I would like to see some kind of monsoon tires that prevent aquaplaning (didn't we used to have those back in the 90s?) so the race can continue in all weathers (visibility permitting) and drivers will then have to be responsible for going at a safe speed.

Normal cars don't stop in the rain, because they are normal cars, where when you are inside you are sheltered from the elements. You have windscreen wipers. Three mirrors. The drivers don't. It is all very well saying it's not safe for the drivers, and there is no reason to say "but" after that. More dangerous means the drivers won't go for it.

It's a crazy idea that will lead to cancelled racers, destroyed cars, injured drivers, teammates (stopping is harder, and p[its are dangerous in the dry), and track workers, not to mention the fans can't see crap at the races.

The monsoon tires were just the full wets from the 90s, with a cooler name. The tires were much wider then and aquaplaned worse, plus the newer tires have a much more advanced tread pattern, and pump way more water out of the way.

It's a fun idea to entertain, but it's not a good one, for at least these reasons.

[TheMinister]

There is no traction control at all. Wet or dry you can't mash the throttle, or you will spin. Driver skill becomes more important, rendering the qualities of the car virtually useless as well

That's my point exactly- in recent years, rules changes have reduced the performance of the cars and made them drive more like they do in the wet all of the time.

Normal cars don't stop in the rain, because they are normal cars, where when you are inside you are sheltered from the elements. You have windscreen wipers. Three mirrors. The drivers don't. It is all very well saying it's not safe for the drivers, and there is no reason to say "but" after that. More dangerous means the drivers won't go for it.

Surely the point of F1 is to showcase the very best motoring technology available? If my family hatchback is quite happy doing 70 down the motorway in the driving rain, then surely an F1 car should be able to. Of course, I'm not saying we should put roofs and windscreens and cup holders onto an F1 car- we should instead use technology to make it the fastest car possible, wet or dry.
Why not have full traction control (accel and brakes), fully adjustable and unlimited aero, unlimited tyres etc...
Yes, it would create some crazy rules situations, and TBH I doubt you could ever draw up rules that could do this and still allow the cars to be driveable in the dry, but it's the principal- we could easily build a car to go racing at high speed around a circuit in the wet, yet we impose rules on ourselves that make it impossible and unsafe to do so. To me, that seems totally absurd.

[Giblet]

ok

Now, pretend I am an F1 driver, and not a fan, and try to sell wet races to me.

If you really need racing in the rain, LMP is the way to go. Some are enclosed and add that safety margin you are avoiding with the wipers and the enclosed cockpits and all.

Dry tracks are always safer then wet ones. If we built an F1 racer that was a specialist in the wet at the expense of performance in the dry, it would not longer be an F1 car. I think it's more then just putting on better tires.

So you would have to be proposing half of the races are in the wet then. This is simply because if I know more then half of the races are going to be dry, the odds are in my favor to make a dry driving car, as my odds of finishing the dry races are much better, and the odds become stacked in my favor over the course of the season. So even if half of the races are wet, there is no reason to make a wet running car over a dry one.

And again, what about the complete washouts when the track has 1-3 inches of water on it in places. No car that is not a truck can pull that off. You need serious weight behind you to maintain contact with the road, no matter how good your tires are. When you hit that water at speed, you might as well be hitting polished concrete, there is nothing you can do.

I think it would be an interesting spectacle of teams had wet cars in addition to dry ones for these really wet races, planned or unplanned, but there goes the spending again, for little result.

[TheMinister]

I was watching the British Touring Cars Championship today, in the torrential rain. They were quite a spectacle- far closer racing on a much more difficult track than F1 cars ever dream of (the Croft circuit in Yorkshire). There were a couple of places where the track was pretty flooded, and the drivers simply had to slow down and take a safer line (this was after a few cars had run wide/spun, so it did take time to learn). I think the main difference to F1 was the survivability of a spin- the cars didn't fall to pieces on touching gravel/barriers, and the circuit was surrounded by grass rather than gravel.

If you wanted to have proper F1 cars that could run in the rain, why not have extra thin super wet tyres (thin enough so the car couldn't aquaplane, no matter how fast you drove in water). Then also have a different set of wings- super high downforce and drag front and rear wings, that teams could bolt on in the pits when the wet tyres went on (high enough drag that you couldn't sensibly run them on a dry track). Allow teams to run full traction control but with an acceleration limit when it is turned on, making it useless in the dry. Add on some tiny little windscreen wipers to the drivers helmet, and some strategically placed lights to aid visibility (on cars, apexes, braking zones etc) and the race could easily continue. No more lost races due to a slight shower = better spectacle = more advertising time = more money for the teams.

The tracks might be a bit of a problem, obviously you can't change a gravel trap to grass in minutes, but some sensible planning and escape roads might make a lot of corners easier to handle in the wet. Standing water could be cleared with sensibly placed drains (the real roads seem to have them) or just some extra camber/cresting on the track.

Of course the drivers and teams would never stand for it- too much effort and discomfort when the current system is just fine for them- but I really think you could safely run F1 races in huge amounts of rain if you wanted to.

[Giblet]

So you put bike tires on to deal with aquaplaning, how so you deal with the 700+hp being put down where you need to get traction.

F1 wet tires work because they need to have some temperature in them, and if they get too cold, the don't work where there is no standing water.

The whole sport, cars, and tracks could be changed for wet only running, but why? It just wouldn't be F1 anymore.

here is your series
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thki6hky ... playnext=1[/youtube]

[Conceptual]

I think a track with 4 inches of standing water, and special downforce generating wheel fenders would be great. Especially if they only allowed say 1/4th inch of water to pass underneath to the tyre...

To dream!

[TheMinister]

Goodbye F1, this swamp buggy business looks much more fun!