Formula 1 2019 - General Discussion Thread

El_Duderino 09

Inviere wrote: »

It didn't bounce back out onto the racing line as such, but the barrier bounced him back out where another car was wide. Those barriers need attention, and the trees behind them probably cleared to make the area bigger/wider.

That’s definitely the first time I’ve seen someone all for more runoff area in a long time. Today we call for it, tomorrow we complain that it lets drivers away with too many mistakes.

flazio

Villeneuve and Magnuessen both had big shunts there over the past few years. It's a tough dilemma, every driver and fan loves the Eau Rouge, Radion combination but can it be made safer without taking out what everyone loves about it.

donspeekinglesh

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Car split down the middle... in 30 years following motor racing, I had never seen anything like it. Calls the structural integrity of the F2 Chaos into question.

The engine/gearbox is supposed to separate from the monocoque in a big crash. Happens from time to time. Good examples would be Brundle's Australian GP crash in 1996 and Katherine Legg at Road America ChampCar race in 2006.

I'm not planning on watching the crash again, but does anyone know if the second impact was on the same side as the first?

mickdw

Engine falling off the back is expected. That is not what happened here. The monocoque did not hold up imo.
Don't know whether belts would have remained intact or not.
The other car was off track too when it hit - just the wrong side of the kerb but not spinning or anything.

Inviere

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s definitely the first time I’ve seen someone all for more runoff area in a long time. Today we call for it, tomorrow we complain that it lets drivers away with too many mistakes.

There's a slight difference between an aerodrome like the French GP, and a known/specific potentially dangerous section of a track where someone has just been killed.

recyclebin

Looking at the photos, it looked like the drivers monocoque was breached on both cars. The side of Huberts car, and the front nose cone of the other one. I think some changes to track and car design will be made after this incident.

H3llR4iser

mickdw wrote: »

Engine falling off the back is expected. That is not what happened here. The monocoque did not hold up imo.
Don't know whether belts would have remained intact or not.
The other car was off track too when it hit - just the wrong side of the kerb but not spinning or anything.

That's precisely the issue. I read an article about it first, where it said the car "broke in half". I watched the footage, and I could see the entire side. Then I realized it had split lengthwise. Freak accident or not, I'd never seen anything like this with single seaters. All the more surprising as Dallara know what they're doing - by all indications, for example, driver safety has increased significantly in Indycar since they took over as chassis manufacturers.

AMKC

H3llR4iser wrote: »

That's precisely the issue. I read an article about it first, where it said the car "broke in half". I watched the footage, and I could see the entire side. Then I realized it had split lengthwise. Freak accident or not, I'd never seen anything like this with single seaters. All the more surprising as Dallara know what they're doing - by all indications, for example, driver safety has increased significantly in Indycar since they took over as chassis manufacturers.

Seen that on CNN not the crash footage but the way the car was split. When heard of it at first I thought the same as you that it broke in half front and back not length ways down the middle of the car. The forces hitting that car must have been very high to do that..Was there absolutely no way the other car could have avoided hitting Anthoines car?

mickdw

He basically bounced off the wall and spun out into the path of the other car. No time to react at those speeds.

El_Duderino 09

Inviere wrote: »

There's a slight difference between an aerodrome like the French GP, and a known/specific potentially dangerous section of a track where someone has just been killed.

Ask someone to build a track which minimises the likelihood of potentially dangerous section of a track where someone Could be killed, and you get an aerodrome like the French GP

tigerboon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ask someone to build a track which minimises the likelihood of potentially dangerous section of a track where someone Could be killed, and you get an aerodrome like the French GP

But they do this all the time. The barriers are where they are by design. Deflection following an impact would be considered. Eg. If it was calculated that a car could bounce back by 10m after impact then they probably put the barriers 12m from track limits line. Without watching the incident, my understanding is the car coming behind was also well outside track limits.
Didn't Brundle or Croft say on Sunday that track limits weren't being imposed? Does this not remove the above factor of safety? Also, if track limits were imposed, the cars would be travelling a fraction slower at that point. Basically, was this accident a result of not using what was already there by design, ie track limits?

El_Duderino 09

tigerboon wrote: »

But they do this all the time. The barriers are where they are by design. Deflection following an impact would be considered. Eg. If it was calculated that a car could bounce back by 10m after impact then they probably put the barriers 12m from track limits line. Without watching the incident, my understanding is the car coming behind was also well outside track limits.
Didn't Brundle or Croft say on Sunday that track limits weren't being imposed? Does this not remove the above factor of safety? Also, if track limits were imposed, the cars would be travelling a fraction slower at that point. Basically, was this accident a result of not using what was already there by design, ie track limits?

You’re not wrong, but now you’re bringing up another point that f1 fans have been railing against all season - imposing the rules rigidly and penalising things like track violations.

It’s well and good to say they should create fewer runoff areas, except in the place where a driver has died. And they shouldn’t impose the rules like track limits rigidly, let them race ffs - except the time when a driver died.

If they imposed penalties for track limit violations, fans would go bananas. A driver has their quali time removes for track violation, fans go bananas.

This is pure and utter captain hindsight stuff happening now. This is the exact opposite of what fans have called for all season - fewer run off areas and stop penalising silly things like track violations.

tigerboon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You’re lot wrong, but now you’re bringing up another point that f1 fans have been railing against all season - imposing the rules rigidly and penalising things like track violations.

It’s well and good to say they should create fewer runoff areas, except in the place where a driver has died. And they shouldn’t impose the rules like track limits rigidly, let them race ffs - except the time when a driver died.

If they imposed penalties for track limit violations, fans would go bananas. A driver has their quali time removes for track violation, fans go bananas.

This is pure and utter captain hindsight stuff happening now. This is the exact opposite of what fans have called for all season - fewer run off areas and stop penalising silly things like track violations.

There was a discussion on here a while back about imposing penalties for exceeding track limits. I don't remember anyone calling for run off areas to be removed. Run off areas are not the problem, it's the use of them to maintain speed that's the issue. They can manage this at Le Mans with 60 odd cars over 4 classes. Warnings, penalties and cancelled times are regular. Fans accept it as the rules. If people want racing to be purely about speed then maybe they should watch oval track racing.
Not imposing track limits doesn't improve racing. It removes the late braking option. The driver who's good on the brakes is disadvantaged due to the speed being maintained through what should be an otherwise tight corner.

El_Duderino 09

tigerboon wrote: »

There was a discussion on here a while back about imposing penalties for exceeding track limits. I don't remember anyone calling for run off areas to be removed. Run off areas are not the problem, it's the use of them to maintain speed that's the issue. They can manage this at Le Mans with 60 odd cars over 4 classes. Warnings, penalties and cancelled times are regular. Fans accept it as the rules. If people want racing to be purely about speed then maybe they should watch oval track racing.
Not imposing track limits doesn't improve racing. It removes the late braking option. The driver who's good on the brakes is disadvantaged due to the speed being maintained through what should be an otherwise tight corner.

Oh yes, they wanted lots of runoff tarmac to be replaced by gravel traps. I don’t remember if particular runoffs were discussed. The point being that they are punished for going off track instead of simply rejoining a few seconds back.

How do you enforce track limits unless you punish violations?

Today they give out about track violations, tomorrow they give out about a penalty for track violations ruining a quali or race.

Today they call for more runoff areas, tomorrow they call for fewer.

Today they say we need greater safety because a driver died, tomorrow they give out about the next safety feature because it’s not pretty.

It’s no wonder the f1 administration ignores fans demands. If I were in charge or any of it, I would ignore few fans too demands too.

tigerboon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh yes, they wanted lots of runoff tarmac to be replaced by gravel traps. I don’t remember if particular runoffs were discussed. The point being that they are punished for going off track instead of simply rejoining a few seconds back.

How do you enforce track limits unless you punish violations?

Today they give out about track violations, tomorrow they give out about a penalty for track violations ruining a quali or race.

Today they call for more runoff areas, tomorrow they call for fewer.

Today they say we need greater safety because a driver died, tomorrow they give out about the next safety feature because it’s not pretty.

It’s no wonder the f1 administration ignores fans demands. If I were in charge or any of it, I would ignore few fans too demands too.

Yes, you punish violations. Not massively, but enough to hurt a bit, say about 3-5 seconds. The track is the bit between the 2 white lines. Staying between them doesn't ruin the race, in fact it's more precise driving (what should be expected of the world's best).
Racing aside, if safety features are based on distance from the track lines, then it's obvious that racing up to a couple of meters outside those lines compromises said safety feature. Hindsight is wonderful of course, but would that accident have happened if track limits were imposed.
Run offs are essential. I don't understand the argument against them. We all want the drivers there for the next race.

Burkie1203

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh yes, they wanted lots of runoff tarmac to be replaced by gravel traps. I don’t remember if particular runoffs were discussed. The point being that they are punished for going off track instead of simply rejoining a few seconds back.

How do you enforce track limits unless you punish violations?

Today they give out about track violations, tomorrow they give out about a penalty for track violations ruining a quali or race.

Today they call for more runoff areas, tomorrow they call for fewer.

Today they say we need greater safety because a driver died, tomorrow they give out about the next safety feature because it’s not pretty.

It’s no wonder the f1 administration ignores fans demands. If I were in charge or any of it, I would ignore few fans too demands too.

examples

Mexico. Hamilton cut the first corner because he got his braking wrong but kept the lead. No penalty


Austin
Max over takes Kimi but cuts a corner doing so. Penalised



Monaco
Hamilton missed the chicane and nearly pushed RIC into the barrier in order to keep him behind. No penalty






Every track
Guys run wide onto the rumble strips and have all 4 wheels off track. They are repeatedly doing This and no penalty applied



People's issue is generally the randomness of it all. One week it's penalised for gaining an advantage, another it's no advantage.

mickdw

This track limits stuff is getting away from the point.
There will be crashes and there will be unfortunate occurrences that just cannot be designed out.
If you design a barrier that absolutely captures the car, you could get the situation where another out of control car ploughed Into the same spot and kills someone. People would then be arguing that bouncing off the barrier was a better solution.
Bianchi death was certainly avoidable. Hubert was just unlucky and got involved in a accident with id imagine non survivable forces involved.

Jordan 199

Italian GP to remain on F1 calendar until 2024.

TCP/IP

Redbull car makes a new dance track with Mark Night
https://redbullracing.redbull.com/article/sound-synergy

El_Duderino 09

Burkie1203 wrote: »

examples

Mexico. Hamilton cut the first corner because he got his braking wrong but kept the lead. No penalty


Austin
Max over takes Kimi but cuts a corner doing so. Penalised



Monaco
Hamilton missed the chicane and nearly pushed RIC into the barrier in order to keep him behind. No penalty






Every track
Guys run wide onto the rumble strips and have all 4 wheels off track. They are repeatedly doing This and no penalty applied



People's issue is generally the randomness of it all. One week it's penalised for gaining an advantage, another it's no advantage.

All true. I’d argue that f1 fans have no clear idea whether they want them all punished or none punished. And I’d say most want common sense “let them race” approach, which is completely circumstantial and nearly random and is similar to what we have now.

Like I said, if I were the f1 administration, I wouldn’t bother with what f1 fans say they want. They always want the other approach to the one taken.

aidyhawse

Surely a simple approach to dealing with track limits is what the BTCC and other touring car series does?

After exceeding track limits 'X' amounts of times, the driver gets a warning. If the driver exceeds track limits after this, they get a penalty. Naturally, if they exceeded track limits due to a mistake/contact which resulted in them losing time, then this would not be counted.

skipper_G

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

All true. I’d argue that f1 fans have no clear idea whether they want them all punished or none punished. And I’d say most want common sense “let them race” approach, which is completely circumstantial and nearly random and is similar to what we have now.

Like I said, if I were the f1 administration, I wouldn’t bother with what f1 fans say they want. They always want the other approach to the one taken.

F1 fans are only consistent with one thing, their total lack of consistency. What they want is heavily influenced by the team/driver they favour and whatever has happened to said team/driver. In practice this looks like "Track limits being punished is bad if they punish my driver, track limits being punished is good if they punish my driver's rival". It's the same reason the Teams should have no say in rule making, they can't look past their own self interest.

skipper_G

Now this is a bold claim to make for Maldonado...… :eek:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/maldonado-ferrari-talks-williams/4530975/

tigerboon

aidyhawse wrote: »

Surely a simple approach to dealing with track limits is what the BTCC and other touring car series does?

After exceeding track limits 'X' amounts of times, the driver gets a warning. If the driver exceeds track limits after this, they get a penalty. Naturally, if they exceeded track limits due to a mistake/contact which resulted in them losing time, then this would not be counted.

They will exceed track limits X-1 times.

Cork Trucker

skipper_G wrote: »

Now this is a bold claim to make for Maldonado...… :eek:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/maldonado-ferrari-talks-williams/4530975/

Kimi or Crashtor to pick from even if true was an easy choice. Raikkonen was a known breed in Maranello, Crashtor was a known breed to the recovery truck drivers at most circuits.

flazio

Tried to download the interview but the app kept crashing.

GarIT

skipper_G wrote: »

Now this is a bold claim to make for Maldonado...… :eek:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/maldonado-ferrari-talks-williams/4530975/

I thought he was full of ****e. But it also might be his culture. He claimed to never have a problem with anyone on the grid, and never have said anything bad about any team, then he excuses specific examples with "being passionate" seemed to have the attitude that he isn't responsible for things he said in the moment. He said his biggest rivals were Alonso, Kimi and Barachello, said he one of the fastest drivers on the grid and he got blamed a lot for things that aren't his fault. He also claimed that the FIA opposed a minimum pit stop time of 7 seconds on Williams after they didn't secure the wheels on his car "6 times *long pause* or 3 or whatever it was". He said nobody ever got him a drive, nobody ever looked after his career like other drivers and he had to do everything himself, then 10 mins later said "When PDVSA told me that they had gotten me a drive at lotus...."

All that being said I loved him as a driver, took a lot of risks, fast with a lot of mistakes, like a clumsier Max in many ways.

H3llR4iser

flazio wrote: »

Tried to download the interview but the app kept crashing.

:D:D

How does this post not have 1 Million thanks???

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/LandoNorris/status/1169628757067534337

Fantastic helmet design from Lando for the weekend. Love it.

H3llR4iser

Ferrari's 90th anniversary celebration art on Twitter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScuderiaFerrari/status/1169249757585428483/photo/1

Not sure what's best, the drawing (although Barrichello is nightmare fuel), or all the butthurt Spanish people about Alonso's position in the poster