2013 Random F1 Discussion

iks · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:05 am

codename_47 wrote:

I'd like it A1GP style, keep the team personnel inside the garage until the car comes to a stop, then they have to run back in and hit a green button or something to give the car a green light so it can go.

Still doesn't eliminate the danger entirely (other cars might be entering the pits at the same time) but reduces the amount of targets in pit lane for wheels, etc.

Ehhh, fuck it, I like the pitstops as they are. The more you make a big thing of them the more they detract from the on-track racing, which is what I actually want to see.

Ban pitstops imo. Problem solved

hmm, i need to watch some 2005-2006 A1GP... :thumbsup:

Philthy82 · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:30 am

Interesting discussion, but the reasoning behind banning media from a live pit lane should be pretty basic to understand. It's all about risk assessment. The risk of injury or death to a person walking along a narrow bit of road surrounded by cars going 100kph is relatively high, certainly higher than the risk to a person standing on pit wall. Not to mention many other top racing series had this sort of thing sorted, oh, 20 years ago.

It's always going to be a judgement call based on risk assessment which is why this always turns into "THEY WON'T STOP UNTIL ROBOTS DRIVE THE CARS" hysteria, but this is a bit of a no-brainer IMO.

micha · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:26 am

Scotty wrote:

micha wrote:

If we want to prevent deaths and injuries F1 should team up with iRacing or a similar program

So you're saying you're not satisfied, with Formula 1 unless people are dying? You've just said if there are no deaths in F1 you said it shouldn't exist in a physical form. So no deaths for drivers in almost 20 years you must be really disappointed why are you still watching it? Either you've phrased your words wrong, or your a fucking moron.

Can't believe the things people say. I watch Formula 1 for strategy, technology, skill. Not because a fatality could be 30 seconds away. I understand motor racing can't be 100% safe, I mean, people die playing soccer, riding horses, playing cricket, nothing is safe.

and the twisting words award goes to you.

I'm saying there are still tons of things that can go wrong that you cannot prevent.

Massa's accident on its own is a freak accident. Add a capony and you can prevent it. But what if a car crashes, due to the crash the mechanism is broken and the capony is stuck and then the car catches on fire.
You solved one problem but created another.

They are traveling around a track with speeds up to 340km/h. Sooner or later something will happen no-one has foreseen and it will go wrong again.

If the mission is to have absolutely NO injuries or deaths the only way is moving to digital racing.

aerogi · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:58 am

ellis wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Can't believe people are calling the FIA decision to ban cameramen in the lane "knee jerk". Are you fucking serious? If that tyre had have bounced a few inches higher it would've killed him instantly, maybe even decapitated him in the worst case scenario, it had that much speed and momentum behind it. Imagine you and a few hundred million other people seeing that live on TV. Just think about that scenario before you call it overreacting. If a Tom Pryce esque accident happened next week, where we see a body getting ripped to a million shreds in all it's high def detail, F1 would never have another race event.

I think what must come into question more is Webber's driving out of the box. Maybe the slide and lack of control was gunning it out his box, or the lack of stability of the wheel, but that should be looked into. When they introduce electric power only in the lane I guess it will probably make acceleration speeds out of the box easier.

I see your point, but it is the definition of a knee jerk reaction. They leave it completely unpoliced for 6 decades, then 1 accident and we've moved to no camera men in the pit lane, and everyone with helmets. Helmets should've been done ages ago, but moving people out of the pit lane seems a bit harsh. What happens when a left hand wheel comes off and hits someone on the pit wall? Will we move everyone off the pit wall, just incase we have a "Tom Pryce" accident on that side? And then there's marshalls, standing all exposed... Yeah the list is endless.

All true.

It will be the same if a bad crash happens in Monaco, then the FIA will decide it is not longer suitable for F1. If a crash happens resulting in a very bad head injury because of the open cockpits, then the FIA will probably look into this and open cockpits will be banned too.

But cars should not leave the pitbox with not all 4 wheels attached. Simple as that. Perhaps they should give really severe penalties if it happens (like a 10 place grid penalty in the next race, or even a ban for a race, I don't know). Then perhaps pitstops will take a few seconds longer, but compared to the life of anyone in the pitlane, that is just nothing. A few years ago I thought they had introduced this 'thing' that they had to put on the nut so it was impossible to come loose?

I am amazed everytime it happens, the lollypopman has like only one thing to do, and yet things can go so wrong...

ellis · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:22 am

Philthy82 wrote:

Interesting discussion, but the reasoning behind banning media from a live pit lane should be pretty basic to understand. It's all about risk assessment. The risk of injury or death to a person walking along a narrow bit of road surrounded by cars going 100kph is relatively high, certainly higher than the risk to a person standing on pit wall. Not to mention many other top racing series had this sort of thing sorted, oh, 20 years ago.

It's always going to be a judgement call based on risk assessment which is why this always turns into "THEY WON'T STOP UNTIL ROBOTS DRIVE THE CARS" hysteria, but this is a bit of a no-brainer IMO.

Well that's just the thing - it is risk assessment. But we only seem to asses those risks after an accident has happened. The point of risk assessment is you look at potential situations before hand and deal with them, rather than react to them. What Ian said is incredibly damning - I didn't know they had a system in place to stop wheels coming off, but removed it. THAT is what is needed. Whilst no system is fool proof, all we're doing here is moving 1 type of man out of the way because he got hurt, because a safety system wasn't installed. If the wheel had hit a mechanic, then the cameramen would still be allowed in the pit lane. And the cameraman in question wasn't really that near the fast lane either. The wheel actually missed the cameraman nearer the fast lane and then hit the one further in, towards the garages.

Why nobody is questioning the removal of a safety mechanism that would've stopped this is beyond me.

Coldtyre · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:52 pm

Same here, the situation that IanS described above is astonishingly stupid.

StanV wrote:

But this is not about drivers, or marshals, or team personnel. Those people actually sign up to challenge the dangers.

It would be foolish of them to think they're not signing up for a danger while working in the pitlane. Even track cameramen are at risk.

It would be interesting to hear from the actual journalists what they think about their situation, which brings me back to my unanswered question:

Quote:

BTW, did they have a meeting or a discussion with the pitlane cameramen first or was it a one-sided decision?

Justin Time · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:10 pm

Yes, it's unfortunate that the camera man got injured. But what most people seem to forget was, that even he said that he was fine after the crash and that he knew the risk and that he will be back. Motorsport is risky and everyone involved in it knows the danger. The danger itself is even part of the attraction (for instance Kimi said so in an interview, or Lewis Hamilton, etc.). It's a thrill, and it's exciting to get these amazing pictures from the pit stops. These men know what they are doing and what kind of risk they take. These people do it because it's their passion. Stop trying to make everything safer in stupid knee jerk reactions. That's my view on it.

MaTT · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:18 pm

Slightly bizarre of Sauber not to run Gutierrez at the test in favour of Sato and Frijns. The guy needs all the seat time he can get.

Unless, of course, they've already given up on him.

mclaren2008 · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:41 pm

Gutierrez has been the under-performer of the year so far

Philthy82 · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:02 pm

Extreme interpretations ITT.

I'd be interested to hear more about Ian's point - my understanding is 4 tethers for each wheel are currently mandated to keep the hub attached to the chassis, but I don't know of any tethers designed to keep the rim attached to the hub and chassis in a loose nut situation - seems like that would be tricky as they're the rotating bits. Would be good to know the facts of this before getting all outraged at FIA inaction.

RtN · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:05 pm

MaTT wrote:

Slightly bizarre of Sauber not to run Gutierrez at the test in favour of Sato and Frijns. The guy needs all the seat time he can get.

Unless, of course, they've already given up on him.

The only reason he was put in the car in the first place was anticipated money and he clearly isn't bringing any of that. Frijns is clearly a faster driver and Sato probably is too, he's having a good season in AutoGP.

webbsy · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:41 pm

Scotty I think most of us here can see your point, but the reason why people are saying its a knee jerk reaction is almost all of the FIA's recant rule changes have been reactive rather than proactive.

ellis · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:50 pm

Scotty wrote:

F1 shouldn't exist without the risk of death. That's what you're saying right there. You're saying ok lets prevent deaths, but not race anymore, do it all on computers. Am I right? You've just said F1 drivers should be risking death.

F1 can still exist even with 0.001% chance of a fatality. You're talking like it only exists because of these fatalities.

Look at us going all 2008, waiting for someone to post a picture of an owl with FATALZ written on it.

...wat

acopip · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:56 pm

Scotty wrote:

Look at us going all 2008, waiting for someone to post a picture of an owl with FATALZ written on it.

I remember that :lol:

micha · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:11 pm

Scotty wrote:

F1 shouldn't exist without the risk of death. That's what you're saying right there. You're saying ok lets prevent deaths, but not race anymore, do it all on computers. Am I right? You've just said F1 drivers should be risking death.

Racing doesn't exist without the risk of death. Thats what I'm saying.
Instead of preaching how safe F1 and other racing is these days they should keep informing racing still has it's risks. I'm seeing the same mentality as back in 1994 pre Imola. Enough reporters said F1 was so safe that a fatality was impossible.

If something happens now everyone panics. And just like they did with the loose wheel they'll make rash decision that doesn't really solve the whole problem.
Now, instead of preventing the wheel coming loose (and apparently there is something available but the teams found it took them too much time) they just take away one potential victim.
Like said on the previous page, if it hit a mechanic, the cameramen would most likely still be allowed in the pit.

And maybe it's just me but I have yet to meet a driver that does not know the risk and has not accepted it. And personally, if they don't accept it I wouldn't allow them to race. That's like a career-soldier saying "woah!! you're sending me to a warzone? I didn't sign up for that!!"

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:39 pm

***maybe off topic***

dunno if someone saw it, but UCSF released several documents regarding tobacco sponsorhip through the years and lots of content regarding Senna and Piquet contracts with Lotus back in late 80's when RJR was major sponsor

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/

NVirkkula · PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:50 pm

Scotty wrote:

Look at us going all 2008, waiting for someone to post a picture of an owl with FATALZ written on it.

Dear Lord, how I hated that picture! I've always been into motorsports, but two incidents made me to take a respectful view on the sports itself. The first was seeing Ayrton Senna's accident in the age of 8. The other was flipping a snowmobile and cracking my helmet and shoulder against a boulder in the age of 16. It's a fun sport to watch and fun to perform, a great part of life. But when it comes down to the bad stuff, it's far from being funny anymore. For me motorsports is the best way to describe the life itself. The great parts are great, but the bad parts is something you don't want to go through and you wish you could prevent them, or later forget them and get on with the good bits again.

I'm all pro for not having too many people at the pitroad, rather than having artificial system to prevent teams to f*ck up their own races at the pits. It's part of the sports for me.

ptclaus98 · PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:36 am

MaTT wrote:

Slightly bizarre of Sauber not to run Gutierrez at the test in favour of Sato and Frijns. The guy needs all the seat time he can get.

Unless, of course, they've already given up on him.

Kimiya Sato, I presume?

noikeee · PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:46 pm

Yes it's him not Takuma lol.

Mattzel89 · PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:41 pm

Ferrari testing the new Pirelli tyres with Vettel at the wheel

TBK-Light.com

2013 Random F1 Discussion

Who is online