Massa questions safety car rules

[funkyrobot]

Well, what a surprise!!

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=44155

[kevin ritson]

ITV said:

Felipe Massa is the latest driver to call for a change in the current safety car rules, believing Fernando Alonso’s win in Singapore was down to luck rather than judgement.

Didn't Massa write the book on luck over judgment?

[VladD]

He does make a valid point though. Alonso would have been lucky to have scored a single point in Singapore if it hadn't been for the safety car.

Having said that, didn't Fisi win at Brazil one year because everyone pitted in front of him and then there was a massive shunt that red flagged the race?

Also a bit rich after his result in Spa.

[german tony]

Ok so he's got a point but let's not forget that he was only asked 'cos of the last race. Had he won, nobody would have asked him. See Spa for more details.

[VladD]

The solution is to get rid of refuelling stops, then the safety car would have far less impact.

[odyssey2200]

VladD said:

The solution is to get rid of refuelling stops, then the safety car would have far less impact.

+1

[zac510]

VladD said:

The solution is to get rid of refuelling stops, then the safety car would have far less impact.

Then what when they want to stop for tyres?

[VladD]

zac510 said:

VladD said:

The solution is to get rid of refuelling stops, then the safety car would have far less impact.

Then what when they want to stop for tyres?

You have to stop for fuel because otherwise you run out. You don't have to stop for tyres, unless you have a puncture, so the impact isn't as severe.

For instance, in Singapore, knowing that Alonso had stopped for tyres before the safety car, his main rivals may not have pitted in order to keep track position. This is impossible if you're about to run out of fuel.

[zac510]

That's idealistic and probably only really works for that situation. What if you were at the end of the life of your soft tyres?

[Plug550]

Come on, the random appearances of the safety car are the only thing that livens up the racing on these new circuits. Perhaps all new circuits should have sprinkler systems fitted as well.

[odyssey2200]

VladD said:

zac510 said:

VladD said:

The solution is to get rid of refuelling stops, then the safety car would have far less impact.

Then what when they want to stop for tyres?

You have to stop for fuel because otherwise you run out. You don't have to stop for tyres, unless you have a puncture, so the impact isn't as severe.

For instance, in Singapore, knowing that Alonso had stopped for tyres before the safety car, his main rivals may not have pitted in order to keep track position. This is impossible if you're about to run out of fuel.

F1 didn't have refueling in the 80s, when racing was exciting and the cars had turbos etc.

[zac510]

There's definitely some kind of myth going around at the moment that banning refuelling will solve all of F1's 'problems'. I'm not sure where it has propogated from but a lot of people believe in it!

[Derek Smith]

Mind you, the fact that Alonso's lead went unchallenged was also due to the fact that Hamilton settled for third.

[jonnylayze]

zac510 said:

That's idealistic and probably only really works for that situation. What if you were at the end of the life of your soft tyres?

This isn't idealistic - Refeulling was banned from (IIRC) 1983 until the start of the 1994 season. It is true that there were stops for tyres during this period but the development of tyres with such a short life is the product of cars running short stints between pit stops. Tyre development tends to follwo fuel strategy if you see what I mean. We do currently have this stupid rule about everyone needing to run both soft and hard tyres during a race but that again is the product of too many rules kerbing what was once the pinnacle of motor sport.

I do agree that refuelling is not the only problem with F1 and banning it would not solve all of the problems but what makes any racing exciting is wheel to wheel combat (witness Senna vs Mansell in Spain 1991) and the ability to 'overtake' during a pt stop removes the need for a driver to overtake on the track. This inevitably lessens the excitement of the race.

Other changes are needed as well - in particular to limit the aerodynamic problems experienced by a car attempting to build speed through a corner before overtaking - but banning refuelling would be a start.

[kevin ritson]

And let's not forget that a car laden with fuel and expected to cover the race on one set of tyres lowers cornering speeds without the need for silly regs...

[E30M3SE]

kevin ritson said:

And let's not forget that a car laden with fuel and expected to cover the race on one set of tyres lowers cornering speeds without the need for silly regs...

More of an endurance race then?

[kevin ritson]

Plenty of races in the '80s that weren't endurance events, although intelligent drivers tended to do well.

[FNG]

odyssey2200 said:

F1 didn't have refueling in the 80s, when racing was exciting and the cars had turbos etc.

No, but there were no pitlane speed limits either so a tyre stop may have cost 12-15 seconds, which is far easier to make up than the 22-25 seconds that are lost in a modern pitstop.

Tyre changes were still needed in the 80s, but because of the smaller time loss in stopping, strategies could be more flexible.

With modern stops without refuelling almost everyone would still have the same number of pitstops, but the best teams may be able to steal a bigger advantage in tyre changing than they currently can with refuelling too. Fuel flows at a fixed rate and everyone pretty much needs the same amount give or take a few laps, so there's less advantage up for grabs.

I reckon ditching refuelling and letting pit stops be tyre changing opportunities would put strategy, crew skill and drivers' mechanical sympathy back into the equation.

If they end up not being able to overtake even with next year's changes maybe it's the sort of thing that will have to be considered.

[odyssey2200]

FNG said:

odyssey2200 said:

F1 didn't have refueling in the 80s, when racing was exciting and the cars had turbos etc.

No, but there were no pitlane speed limits either so a tyre stop may have cost 12-15 seconds, which is far easier to make up than the 22-25 seconds that are lost in a modern pitstop.

Tyre changes were still needed in the 80s, but because of the smaller time loss in stopping, strategies could be more flexible.

With modern stops without refuelling almost everyone would still have the same number of pitstops, but the best teams may be able to steal a bigger advantage in tyre changing than they currently can with refuelling too. Fuel flows at a fixed rate and everyone pretty much needs the same amount give or take a few laps, so there's less advantage up for grabs.

I reckon ditching refuelling and letting pit stops be tyre changing opportunities would put strategy, crew skill and drivers' mechanical sympathy back into the equation.

If they end up not being able to overtake even with next year's changes maybe it's the sort of thing that will have to be considered.

Its is still a level playing field.

Everyones tyre stop would be the same so the only advantage would be to not change tyres or pit.
Less stopping=More time on track = more racing = good!

I remember watching Senna, Mansell et al trying to nurse a car to the end without pitting and without dropping off the race pace.

Edge of the seat stuff.

(Was Oz where Murray uttered the word " and all Mansell has to do is finish"
Cue a tyre letting go and Mansell snaking into the run off area! )

Found the link but could not find Murray's commentary

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNxo7Zt6d8

Edited by odyssey2200 on Monday 6th October 19:29

[mchammer89]

funkyrobot said:

Well, what a surprise!!

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=44155

Yup what a surprise, driver says something that makes sense and is what so many on here have been saying for quite some time, however, as he is a Ferrari driver, it turns to personal insults to him.