Official 2020 Eifel Grand Prix Thread **SPOILERS**
Discussion
TwentyFive said:
TheDeuce said:
It was never particularly likely max would take the place but the SC bought several cars closer together, which does increase the likelihood of more battling. Plus the general drama of a race restarting from SC. I see what they were going for in terms of entertainment but it was a bit obvious and felt very contrived.. the race was already interesting enough imo.
It might just be my imagination but I feel like the SC is being deployed far more often now for 'entertainment purposes' as opposed to for a real safety need because the owners are from the USA. It all seems very American in much the same way that NASCAR like a green-white-chequered shootout or IndyCar throw cautions late in the Indy 500 for 'debris' that nobody can ever see.
I love a close finish, but not when it is falsely created.
Adrian W said:
Derek Smith said:
I thought they always brought a SC out if there's a car fire. Part of their SOPs.
at what point is the car on fire? a little bit of smoke from oil? a soaked out engine? or actual flames?g4ry13 said:
Isn't the main reason they have been more eager to put them out this season is due to the coronavirus and having a lot less marshals at the tracks than usual?
That doesn't explain Norris's car, parked right next to a marshall post next to a gap in the barrier and a crane. A short VSC would have sorted it.g4ry13 said:
TwentyFive said:
TheDeuce said:
It was never particularly likely max would take the place but the SC bought several cars closer together, which does increase the likelihood of more battling. Plus the general drama of a race restarting from SC. I see what they were going for in terms of entertainment but it was a bit obvious and felt very contrived.. the race was already interesting enough imo.
It might just be my imagination but I feel like the SC is being deployed far more often now for 'entertainment purposes' as opposed to for a real safety need because the owners are from the USA. It all seems very American in much the same way that NASCAR like a green-white-chequered shootout or IndyCar throw cautions late in the Indy 500 for 'debris' that nobody can ever see.
I love a close finish, but not when it is falsely created.
A VSC was more than appropriate to cover that off and have the car safely removed, but a full SC was still thrown. It made no logical sense and I still think it was only used as a method to try and spice up the finish.
TwentyFive said:
TheDeuce said:
It was never particularly likely max would take the place but the SC bought several cars closer together, which does increase the likelihood of more battling. Plus the general drama of a race restarting from SC. I see what they were going for in terms of entertainment but it was a bit obvious and felt very contrived.. the race was already interesting enough imo.
It might just be my imagination but I feel like the SC is being deployed far more often now for 'entertainment purposes' as opposed to for a real safety need because the owners are from the USA. It all seems very American in much the same way that NASCAR like a green-white-chequered shootout or IndyCar throw cautions late in the Indy 500 for 'debris' that nobody can ever see.
I love a close finish, but not when it is falsely created.
1: Lewham and Bottas
2: Max
3: the rest
The SC is a marketing instrument.
vaud said:
Adrian W said:
Derek Smith said:
I thought they always brought a SC out if there's a car fire. Part of their SOPs.
at what point is the car on fire? a little bit of smoke from oil? a soaked out engine? or actual flames?Byker28i said:
vaud said:
Adrian W said:
Derek Smith said:
I thought they always brought a SC out if there's a car fire. Part of their SOPs.
at what point is the car on fire? a little bit of smoke from oil? a soaked out engine? or actual flames?jsf said:
No extra hardware was deployed to Norris car, had they wanted to get a fire crew there a SC or even red flag would have been appropriate.
There was zero reason for a SC, even just throwing a double yellow would have done the job in this instance.
The engine cover was burning and the fault was fuel/ignition related. The cars are heavily electrified. There was zero reason for a SC, even just throwing a double yellow would have done the job in this instance.
Had the fire gone up properly, the marshalls wouldn't have been able to move it and racing obviously can't continue with a burning car within striking distance of the live track.
I normally hate safety cars (and even here it was left out for far too long), however on this occasion I think they did the right thing in deploying it.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
The engine cover was burning and the fault was fuel/ignition related. The cars are heavily electrified.
Had the fire gone up properly, the marshalls wouldn't have been able to move it and racing obviously can't continue with a burning car within striking distance of the live track.
I normally hate safety cars (and even here it was left out for far too long), however on this occasion I think they did the right thing in deploying it.
As i stated, no extra fire hardware was deployed. Had it been required you then throw the SC to allow it safe passage.Had the fire gone up properly, the marshalls wouldn't have been able to move it and racing obviously can't continue with a burning car within striking distance of the live track.
I normally hate safety cars (and even here it was left out for far too long), however on this occasion I think they did the right thing in deploying it.
Whats the relevance of fuel/ignition? Unless you missed the bleedin obvious, exhaust systems direct gasses generated by fuel/ignition and get hot. They often burn bodywork when you stop abruptly due to heat soak. What you saw with Norris car was standard fair, certainly nothing unusual.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
The engine cover was burning and the fault was fuel/ignition related. The cars are heavily electrified.
Had the fire gone up properly, the marshalls wouldn't have been able to move it and racing obviously can't continue with a burning car within striking distance of the live track.
I normally hate safety cars (and even here it was left out for far too long), however on this occasion I think they did the right thing in deploying it.
George Russell's electrified Williams was in bits all over the racetrack, yet still didn't get a safety car, odd that, isn't itHad the fire gone up properly, the marshalls wouldn't have been able to move it and racing obviously can't continue with a burning car within striking distance of the live track.
I normally hate safety cars (and even here it was left out for far too long), however on this occasion I think they did the right thing in deploying it.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Had the fire gone up properly, the marshalls wouldn't have been able to move it and racing obviously can't continue with a burning car within striking distance of the live track.
I normally hate safety cars (and even here it was left out for far too long), however on this occasion I think they did the right thing in deploying it.
You mention 'had the fire gone up properly' and by doing so you highlighted exactly why the SC wasn't needed. They should have reacted appropriately to what was happening, not what may or may not have have happened next.I normally hate safety cars (and even here it was left out for far too long), however on this occasion I think they did the right thing in deploying it.
It should have a VSC first to make the area safe for marshals to deal with the smoking car and try to move it, however if the fire did take hold (which it didn't) then they could have then rightly moved it up to a full SC situation. It was all for the show.
It was an event running in real time with Norris' car looking like it may go up in flames properly any second. It was claimed above that the engine cover burning on the outside is a common scene. I'm not sure that's true. From an earlier report I read, Renault/McLaren revealed the fault caused unburned fuel to exit via the exhausts.
The Williams was also mentioned above. That was a puncture/suspension failure, was it not? No suggestion of a car on fire or issues with high energy electrical components.
It's pretty easy for us all to criticise in hindsight and I don't believe enough decisions are made the right way during the race, however in the circumstances I don't agree it was wrong to deploy the SC as opposed to VSC or even waved yellows.
The Williams was also mentioned above. That was a puncture/suspension failure, was it not? No suggestion of a car on fire or issues with high energy electrical components.
It's pretty easy for us all to criticise in hindsight and I don't believe enough decisions are made the right way during the race, however in the circumstances I don't agree it was wrong to deploy the SC as opposed to VSC or even waved yellows.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
It was an event running in real time with Norris' car looking like it may go up in flames properly any second. It was claimed above that the engine cover burning on the outside is a common scene. I'm not sure that's true. From an earlier report I read, Renault/McLaren revealed the fault caused unburned fuel to exit via the exhausts.
The Williams was also mentioned above. That was a puncture/suspension failure, was it not? No suggestion of a car on fire or issues with high energy electrical components.
It's pretty easy for us all to criticise in hindsight and I don't believe enough decisions are made the right way during the race, however in the circumstances I don't agree it was wrong to deploy the SC as opposed to VSC or even waved yellows.
so that would be the exhaust, the bit that is designed to get extremely hot and even contain fire, that sticks out of the back of the car, I know, maybe they were worried that it might singe the damp grass The Williams was also mentioned above. That was a puncture/suspension failure, was it not? No suggestion of a car on fire or issues with high energy electrical components.
It's pretty easy for us all to criticise in hindsight and I don't believe enough decisions are made the right way during the race, however in the circumstances I don't agree it was wrong to deploy the SC as opposed to VSC or even waved yellows.
Adrian W said:
so that would be the exhaust, the bit that is designed to get extremely hot and even contain fire, that sticks out of the back of the car, I know, maybe they were worried that it might singe the damp grass
I'm not sure how the exhaust could contain a fire that might engulf the bodywork. My understanding is that there are protocols. These are there in part to be a defence against accusations of criminal negligance. The prosecution of members of Williams after Senna's death concerned many and changes were made to ensure there was a fall-back. You might feel it has gone too far, but then you are not in line to be prosecuted.
Dangerous chemicals are given off when man-made mineral fibres burn. It's an important aspect of fighting fires at airports. Airport fire fighters are trained in combatting the hazard - I assume all are, even outside airports, but I don't know - and there are procedures that need to be followed. I bet there are all sorts of class actions that could follow an out of control MMMF fire.
It's a matter of judgment. If your argument is that it was a convenient tool for the race organisers to spice up the race, and to threaten LH's lead, then that is another matter. I have no knowledge of whether this is true or not.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff