Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Also, with much reduced speeds due to the rain, wouldn't it actually be safer in case of crashes? Sure there will be more of them but they'll be a lot less in impact as well.
"There is a credit card with the Ferrari logo, issued by Santander, which gives the scuderia a % of purchases made with the card...
I would guess that such a serious amount of money would allow them to ignore the constant complains of a car that was nowhere near as bad as their #1 driver tried to sell throughout the season.
Heck, a car on which Massa finishes in the podium or has to lift so that his teammate finishes ahead (As we saw often in the final races of the year) is, by no means, a "bad" car."
Lycoming wrote:I don't see how that makes it safer.
F1 cars are already very safe. Look at some of the massive impacts these cars have had over recent years and each time the driver has walked away, without a scratch. Safety is paramount, yes, but these guys are not scared little girls. They sign up for this and accept the risks.
Reduced speed + car adjustments + suitable tyres = cars can run = good show = I'll watch all the ads and sponsors.
With all the hype about F1 'spicing it up', you would think having hundreds of millions of bored viewers switching off would be more of a loss than a couple of drivers who can't cope with slippery conditions.
I don't get why people keep saying "man up". Drivers have said numerous times that grip is not the problem with racing in the wet, visibility is. on open wheel cars, it is impossible to see with the amount of spray that gets kicked up.
They stop wet races for 2 reasons:
1. There's so much standing water that aquaplaning is inevitable. as in, the water level is so high it catches the skidplank of the car, at which point no amount of driver skill will be of any use as the tyres are incapable of generating reasonable amounts of force. The driver is simply a passenger in this scenario. It's not racing, its just a bunch of people flailing about trying to stay on the track, usually behind the safety car. I don't get what kind of show there is here.
2. There's so much rain/spray you can't see anything. At that point, it is ridiculously dangerous. again, its no longer really about driver skill. I guess if you really want to see who has "the balls", sure, but thats all its about. This is the main reason why they stop wet races. Driving around in those conditions is not racing, as only the leader can see anything. I don't care how good their carbon tubs and crash barriers and driver restraints are, it doesn't change the fact that this sort of condition is unreasonably dangerous.
It has to be very, very wet to satisfy either of the above conditions. Canada 2011 was a good example, as was Nurburgring 2007. I like wet races, because truly skilled driving shines through. But there reaches a point where it's no longer racing. I don't understand why the drivers are labelled as a bunch of pansies if the FIA red flags the race under those conditions.
It was said somewhere, sometime, in the bible that human knowledge will grow exponentially.
I think Formula One racing is one example of such "words turn flesh".
Lycoming wrote:I don't get why people keep saying "man up". Drivers have said numerous times that grip is not the problem with racing in the wet, visibility is. on open wheel cars, it is impossible to see with the amount of spray that gets kicked up.
They stop wet races for 2 reasons:
1. There's so much standing water that aquaplaning is inevitable. as in, the water level is so high it catches the skidplank of the car, at which point no amount of driver skill will be of any use as the tyres are incapable of generating reasonable amounts of force. The driver is simply a passenger in this scenario. It's not racing, its just a bunch of people flailing about trying to stay on the track, usually behind the safety car. I don't get what kind of show there is here.
2. There's so much rain/spray you can't see anything. At that point, it is ridiculously dangerous. again, its no longer really about driver skill. I guess if you really want to see who has "the balls", sure, but thats all its about. This is the main reason why they stop wet races. Driving around in those conditions is not racing, as only the leader can see anything. I don't care how good their carbon tubs and crash barriers and driver restraints are, it doesn't change the fact that this sort of condition is unreasonably dangerous.
It has to be very, very wet to satisfy either of the above conditions. Canada 2011 was a good example, as was Nurburgring 2007. I like wet races, because truly skilled driving shines through. But there reaches a point where it's no longer racing. I don't understand why the drivers are labelled as a bunch of pansies if the FIA red flags the race under those conditions.
This.
On camera, we don't see as much spray because we're seeing it generally from above. Try looking at videos from the wetter races when a driver tucks into another's slipstream. You can't see anything, and even that's better than what the driver sees. Remember Nurburgring 1968? Jackie said the spray was so bad (in an era where spray would be much much lighter than today) that he just closed his eyes and kept on doing the lap from memory.
Not only that, but if it's all about putting on a show, how do you explain to people who've paid huge money to attend a race that the race will proceed even though all anyone will see is a couple of cars and a whole lot of phantom rooster-tails?
Drivers can take different lines and don't have to follow right behind the car in front. They could also drop back and change their strategy to suit the conditions. Massive rooster tails may not appear if the cars are going slower. I've heard many reports from touring car drivers who's windscreen wipers have stopped in torrential rain - they didn't stop racing.
The crowd would be happy to see cars going around at half speed. Most can't see all the track anyway and yes, their visibility would be reduced - but the visibility is reduced to ZERO when there's no cars on track.
There is always a point where it becomes impossible to race, but they should attempt to get out there, with the required changes, and put a show on. We want to see results, not excuses.
Let's not forget the practical considerations. Those are equally as important here.
The size of F1 wheels and tires are dictated by the regulations. As such, teams are mindful of those dimensions when designing their cars. Because it's F1 and everything is optimized to the Nth degree, there's little to no margin for anything larger to be fitted to the car. Larger tires, such as those better suited for extreme wet conditions, would rub against all four brake ducts (not good), the floor in the rear (also not good), and the front wing (not good at all). Each of those components would have to be adapted to accept larger tires.
There are no ride height requirements in the regulations. Ride height legality is a function of plank wear. Because of that relative freedom, and, again, because it's F1 and everything is optimized to the Nth degree, the suspension geometry of F1 cars is more or less designed to keep the car both as low to the ground as possible and as stable as possible. To eliminate the risk of hydroplaning - what we call it here in the States - the suspension would need to have the flexibility to add one or two inches of ride-height and become substantially softer.
Now, every change I've described here is 100% possible and actually quite simple. But, that added capability would rob the car of performance in the normal, dry-weather conditions in which about 97% of all races are run. No amount of development would ever change that, because a compromise is a compromise is a compromise. So, why would you want to compromise 97% of the show just to add the capability to handle the ridiculous, torrential rain F1 encounters about once every four or five years?
One more thing to consider is the effect of such adaptability in "normal" wet conditions. Wet races are typically lauded because of their tendency to equalize the performance of the cars, which makes driver skill all the more important. I like that every once in a while. If the cars were given the ability to operate in extreme wet conditions, their ability in "normal" wet conditions would likely improve immensely. It seems to me that such a change would negate the very reason why most wet races are popular.
As I've said before, I love a good wet race. But, I can handle being disappointed every once in a while when it's simply too wet. (By the way, that's the first time I've ever put together those words in that fashion. Historic.)
We had a good thing going in here, but that last post was the end imo. If you start bringing up how extreme wet weather tyres would make contact with the brake ducts, floors,etc. you're gasping at straws. Besides, this will probably be a one off weekend in that the rest will mainly be dry even if happens to rain during one of the sessions.
Lycoming wrote:I don't see how that makes it safer.
F1 cars are already very safe. Look at some of the massive impacts these cars have had over recent years and each time the driver has walked away, without a scratch. Safety is paramount, yes, but these guys are not scared little girls. They sign up for this and accept the risks.
Reduced speed + car adjustments + suitable tyres = cars can run = good show = I'll watch all the ads and sponsors.
With all the hype about F1 'spicing it up', you would think having hundreds of millions of bored viewers switching off would be more of a loss than a couple of drivers who can't cope with slippery conditions.
Man up.
You get it bro!
"There is a credit card with the Ferrari logo, issued by Santander, which gives the scuderia a % of purchases made with the card...
I would guess that such a serious amount of money would allow them to ignore the constant complains of a car that was nowhere near as bad as their #1 driver tried to sell throughout the season.
Heck, a car on which Massa finishes in the podium or has to lift so that his teammate finishes ahead (As we saw often in the final races of the year) is, by no means, a "bad" car."
I still fail to see the spray-argument, the tracks are wide enough to use different driving lines to avoid spray. They can also stay back far enough to avoid spray. Or, the guys with the most guts won't do any of this or less of it and actually be the ones winning. I was at Spa recently during a red flagged session and EVERYONE of the spectators agreed that they could have easily driven. Visibility in real life is a lot better than on television as far as spray is concerned. Those who've actually been to races will confirm.
The aquaplaning same story, I don't think they would ever be unable to make it round the track, even if that means driving 50 MPH tops. This would again separate the guys with great car control and guts from those with less of both. Always being able to use full throttle and full brake power is easy compared to what that would ask for.
Not to mention again that any crash would be less severe due to greatly reduced speeds.
"There is a credit card with the Ferrari logo, issued by Santander, which gives the scuderia a % of purchases made with the card...
I would guess that such a serious amount of money would allow them to ignore the constant complains of a car that was nowhere near as bad as their #1 driver tried to sell throughout the season.
Heck, a car on which Massa finishes in the podium or has to lift so that his teammate finishes ahead (As we saw often in the final races of the year) is, by no means, a "bad" car."
jdlive wrote:I was at Spa recently during a red flagged session and EVERYONE of the spectators agreed that they could have easily driven.
And what do the spectators know about driving grand prix cars in the wet?
This would again separate the guys with great car control and guts from those with less of both.
Don't think so. It's easy to conclude that poor grip conditions = good or interesting racing and "separating the talent" but I don't see that. When I see that in a race, drivers just become more conservative and cautious because of the risk/reward factor... if you spin out and lose several grid positions you're hosed. And you know some other drivers are going to lose it, so you can gain spots by just waiting out the war of attrition and attacking in select opportunities.
In my experience, terrible grip just does not make for good racing. Terrible visibility certainly the same. Racing in "inter" conditions is manageable and makes for good stuff. Full on monsoon? Pointless.
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.
Have you ever been to a full rain Formula-race yourself? The visibility in reality is always a lot better than what you might suspect based on television footage.
And all arguments you make are basically pro-arguments in my view, what you call being cautious, I would rather call having the skill to keep the car on track and to not go over more firmly imposed limits than they would be in dry races.
In such a scenario, we might actually see a Vitaly Petrov or the likes win a race, who knows. It would be great to watch.
"There is a credit card with the Ferrari logo, issued by Santander, which gives the scuderia a % of purchases made with the card...
I would guess that such a serious amount of money would allow them to ignore the constant complains of a car that was nowhere near as bad as their #1 driver tried to sell throughout the season.
Heck, a car on which Massa finishes in the podium or has to lift so that his teammate finishes ahead (As we saw often in the final races of the year) is, by no means, a "bad" car."
