Is the safety car start, the beginning of the end?

[HustleRussell]

Eric Mc said:

Once upon a time, in the dim and distant past BB (i.e. Before Bernie), the Monaco GP was one of the few GPs actually shown live every year. I remember watching lots of Monaco GPs from the early 1970s. From what I can recall, NONE of these races ever were delayed starting because of rain - even in the two notoriously wet years of 1972 and 1984.

The only delayed Monaco GP I can recall was 1981 when, ironically, it was bone dry on the circuit EXCEPT inside the tunnel because of a massive water leak dripping through from Lowes Hotel above.

Interesting, so tell me in which year was the race start delayed?

[Eric Mc]

1981.

Due to a fire in the kitchen of Lowes Hotel and the water from the sprinkler system and firemen's hoses flooding the tunnel.

"Not technically an incident from the grand prix itself, but still pretty dramatic.

Before the 1981 race was due to start, a fire broke out in the Loews hotel, which sits above the city’s famous tunnel. Firemen quickly brought the blaze under control, but somehow water from their hoses leaked through the building and onto the track, creating a dangerous hazard on the circuit.

The race was delayed by an hour to let the tarmac dry out, and Gilles Villeneuve eventually claimed his first and only win in the principality after lapping every finisher except the two on the podium".

[S0 What]

Why do we get this histerics every time we have a questionable safty car period? i meen it's not like it's the first time FFS
gotta love newbys, they do love histerics/over reacing ect ect

[Eric Mc]

Don't know about "histerics" - but I do love "historics".

[Adrian W]

S0 What said:

Why do we get this histerics every time we have a questionable safty car period? i meen it's not like it's the first time FFS
gotta love newbys, they do love histerics/over reacing ect ect

Histerics? Why bother going through the process of qualifying, just draw lots and line up behind the safety car.

Didn't understand the newbys comment

[K50 DEL]

Adrian W said:

Complete joke, this has to be the end of F1, completely wreck any chance of a race deliberately

Yep, my heart sank when I heard that it was a safety car start, just because of a bit of water.
Last year we had a race delayed because of the possibility of lightning....

I thought this was supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, seems to me like something else ruined by the 'elf and safety weenies

[Vaud]

K50 DEL said:

Yep, my heart sank when I heard that it was a safety car start, just because of a bit of water.
Last year we had a race delayed because of the possibility of lightning....

I thought this was supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, seems to me like something else ruined by the 'elf and safety weenies

Would you rather have seen a 10 car pile up at the first corner and a race amongst the remnants?

We had a good race with almost all participants - isn't that better in the balance of things?

[Eric Mc]

Most start line pile ups at Monaco have occurred during dry races.

There was no pile up in 1972 nor in 1984 - when conditions were much worse.

Or have you no confidence in the ability of these top flight drivers to cope with wet conditions?

[Vaud]

Eric Mc said:

Most start line pile ups at Monaco have occurred during dry races.

There was no pile up in 1972 nor in 1984 - when conditions were much worse.

Or have you no confidence in the ability of these top flight drivers to cope with wet conditions?

I think my position has been made clear.
Using historical data can mislead and misinform risk decisions (and the dice have no memory)

[K50 DEL]

Vaud said:

K50 DEL said:

Yep, my heart sank when I heard that it was a safety car start, just because of a bit of water.
Last year we had a race delayed because of the possibility of lightning....

I thought this was supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, seems to me like something else ruined by the 'elf and safety weenies

Would you rather have seen a 10 car pile up at the first corner and a race amongst the remnants?

We had a good race with almost all participants - isn't that better in the balance of things?

If the drivers cannot race according to the conditions then they have no business being in those seats...
There have been normal starts (and racing) under far worse conditions over the years with no pile-ups.

Sorry but this is just another example of H+S weenie BS

[Vaud]

K50 DEL said:

If the drivers cannot race according to the conditions then they have no business being in those seats...
There have been normal starts (and racing) under far worse conditions over the years with no pile-ups.

Sorry but this is just another example of H+S weenie BS

Spa 1998? Similar conditions, short sprint to first corner pileup. 10 cars out.

Also, times change. Less about "H&S". More that the viewing public don't want to see their heroes die on live TV.

You are living in the past.


Sometimes I think this forum wants to live in the 60's and 70's for racing safety.

[Eric Mc]

Vaud said:

I think my position has been made clear.
Using historical data can mislead and misinform risk decisions (and the dice have no memory)

So, using historical precedence and practice is no guide to future risk?

When you consider how dangerous motor racing was until the 1980s, Monaco actually has a very good safety record.

With modern safety systems at both the circuit and car design, it is even safer now. So starting in the wet is FAR less risky than it was decades ago - when nothing much ever happened, except drivers driving a bit more slowly and cautiously - which people seem to think modern drivers are incapable of and can't be trusted to behave themselves.

[Vaud]

Eric Mc said:

So, using historical precedence and practice is no guide to future risk?

Re-read my post.

I said "it can mislead" not "it does mislead".

Personally I trust the race director, who has a massive amount of experience, has far more data than we have, including a highly experienced safety car driver, plus near direct access to all of the drivers for their opinion to take a balanced view.

But then it's much easier to just rant about "H&S" on a forum for most.

[Adrian W]

Vaud said:

Would you rather have seen a 10 car pile up at the first corner and a race amongst the remnants?

Surely this is the whole point of F1, the danger, the risk, the competiveness, the technology, the big bucks etc etc, not to wimp out because of a bit of rain.

[Vaud]

Adrian W said:

Surely this is the whole point of F1, the danger, the risk, the competiveness, the technology, the big bucks etc etc, not to wimp out because of a bit of rain.

There is a balance though - having only a handful of cars left racing is equally rubbish in my view.

Don't get me wrong, my armchair expert view is that the safety car was left out too long, but I have no issue with it allowing drivers 2 laps and then a rolling start.

[C70R]

Vaud said:

Personally I trust the race director, who has a massive amount of experience, has far more data than we have, including a highly experienced safety car driver, plus near direct access to all of the drivers for their opinion to take a balanced view.

But then it's much easier to just rant about "H&S" on a forum for most.

But, but... it used to be so much better in "the old days".

You know, "the old days"? Like the 1970s, when F1 racing and testing claimed the lives of 12 drivers. But it was so much better because "the old days"...

Adrian W said:

Surely this is the whole point of F1, the danger, the risk, the competiveness, the technology, the big bucks etc etc, not to wimp out because of a bit of rain.

F1 is the safest it has ever been, and that's a fact. I trust the people in charge to make the right decisions to safeguard the lives of the people who I sit down to watch every second Sunday.


Chiming in that nobody has ever died in a wet start at Monaco misses the point spectacularly - it's about calculated risk. Something that was sadly absent in "the old days".
It was a decision made for the good of the drivers' and the spectacle. This is the pinnacle of motorsport, not banger racing or dodgems.

I want to watch a race with the maximum number of drivers, running competitively for the maximum number of laps. I don't get any enjoyment from a first corner (wet track) pileup that results in a red flag or protracted safety car period.
As it was, we had an excellent Monaco (not always a given), with battles throughout the field. One of the best in years for me.
Decision vindicated.

[Vaud]

Well put and exactly my sentiments.

[Adrian W]

I think you are both wrong,

Why isn't club racing or even touring cars treated in the same way? Is a Formula 1 drivers life more valuable than drivers in other classes.

The race director or TV director at Monaco over reacted, even the Porsches had to start under the safety car, but at least they let them go on lap three

[Eric Mc]

Yes - F1 drivers are far more valuable than "ordinary" racing drivers - not because they are better people or even better drivers, but because they are on TV and are high profile - and F1 organisers are scared stless that the image and, most importantly, the value of the brand will be damaged by an incident.

It's nothing to do with people. It's to do with money - which for the past 20 years at least is the ONLY thing that dictates what happens in F1.

[C70R]

Adrian W said:

I think you are both wrong,

Why isn't club racing or even touring cars treated in the same way? Is a Formula 1 drivers life more valuable than drivers in other classes.

The race director or TV director at Monaco over reacted, even the Porsches had to start under the safety car, but at least they let them go on lap three

Do you realise how silly you sound when you completely contradict yourself?
The Porsche Cup race has significantly less money and exposure than F1 (fewer viewers than many other series), but it was still deemed safer to start behind a safety car. Therefore your point about F1 being a special case is comprehensively refuted.
Calculated risk. It's what separates us from the "good old days".

The TV director has NO jurisdiction over the race director's decision to run behind a safety car. This is the kind of nonsense one might expect from a teenage conspiracy theorist.

Eric Mc said:

Yes - F1 drivers are far more valuable than "ordinary" racing drivers - not because they are better people or even better drivers, but because they are on TV and are high profile - and F1 organisers are scared stless that the image and, most importantly, the value of the brand will be damaged by an incident.

It's nothing to do with people. It's to do with money - which for the past 20 years at least is the ONLY thing that dictates what happens in F1.

It's all to do with not applying slapdash decision-making to the pinnacle of motorsport. The fact that the pinnacle of motorsport also attracts more money is incidental. You're doing 2+2 and finding 5, because you wanted to find 5.

Monaco is a narrow track, with almost no run-off. This means that any accident, no matter how minor, has potential to seriously disrupt/red-flag the race. Wet racing significantly increases the potential for accidents, particularly at first corners (see the Spa example above).

Can you imagine how stupid the race director would have looked if he caved-in to the "it was better in the old days" pressure, resulting in 10 DNFs (or a red flag, or further safety car) at the first corner?

Can you imagine if there had been a serious injury as a result? Who would have been liable?
F1 has moved on from the harem-scarem days of the 1970s. Calculated risk and driver welfare are paramount in race control decision-making, which I wholeheartedly applaud.
I'd suggest that your attitudes probably have some catching up to do.