Jump to content Jump to content

F1 2014 Japanese Grand Prix


buttonfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's a better idea To those who watched Le Mans this year , wasn't the slow zone a good idea ? I think they should try and implement this in some way. At least when it's wet anyway. 
I mentioned the same thing above, and @JensonBottom it doesn't matter how big the track is. I still consider it to be a better idea than pushing the safety car out, cars frantically pitting, and then still going at high speed to actually catch the safety car.
Sorry , I never saw it.  I just hope there isn't a knee-jerk reaction and we have a safety car every time there's the tiniest piece of debris on the track. Unfortunately , going by recent decisions by the FIA , that'll be the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

mike96 said:
I think they need to reconsider the SC rules, every time the crane has to go into the circuit -> safety car.

that's really what I was thinking too but I was also thinking that the weather condition's played their part in what happened too. Because  both Sutil and Bianchi I think aquaplaned off otherwise those accident's would not have happened. I don't think it would necessarily have to happen all the time but in the weather conditions like we saw in Suzuka I definitely think they need to neutralize the race before sending out recovery teams mostly because for the drivers visibility is quite poor in those conditions and they don't have windscreen wipers and such to help with that either. I think even Hamilton would have to agree that he would rather have to try to defend against Rosberg for a few laps after the safety car comes back in than have that happen to a fellow competitor again and I suspect we could say the same for the whole paddock.

I agree we don't need any knee jerk reactions here but I'd be surprised if they didn't review the safety car situations in the aftermath of this event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britpoint said:
I too think slow zones are generally a good idea. They're not for all situations, and drivers also simply need to remember to respect the flags properly, but slow zones are also extremely sensible, especially when there are workers on the outside of fast corners. They're fair, safe, effective and easy to enforce. They would be a welcome tool in any Race Control room.
yeah solw zones around the accident site would probably work for areas where they may fee lthe SC might not be needed it's just a question of encouraging the drivers to follow them given Bianchi might not have followed the double yellows or possibly didn't even see them given the conditions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the FIA should introduce harsher penalties for not complying with yellow and double yellow flags.  Binachi had failed to sufficiently slow down enough for the double yellows considering he was traveling at 130mph on the exit of the corner, in the wet and the rules say that ' two waved yellow flags at the same post means that drivers must slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary'. 

A slow down zone shouldn't be necessary in Formula 1. Its not like Le Mans when there's different classes with different speeds which led to awkward situations under yellows when a faster class car came up behind a slower class car.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britpoint said:
Former F1 doc Gary Hartstein made a good point in one of his blogs: double-waved yellows were being shown in the danger zone. They mean "slow down and be prepared to stop". If Jules was going fast enough to aquaplane, he wasn't obeying that.

This is not a criticism of him in particular - none of the drivers slow down enough for double yellows, because if you're the only one who obeys them properly there's a huge disadvantage when nobody else does. As Hartstein says: human beings are on track and at risk in double yellow zones. Before we start looking at knee jerk safety reforms, get the drivers respecting the safety systems that already exist. Get them obeying the 'spirit' of the law ("how slow must I go to keep everyone safe?") rather than the letter ("how many tenths must I slow by to avoid punishment?").
They were still aquaplaning while doing 80 when they started the race behind the safety car, they should have moved the race forward.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britpoint said:
Former F1 doc Gary Hartstein made a good point in one of his blogs: double-waved yellows were being shown in the danger zone. They mean "slow down and be prepared to stop". If Jules was going fast enough to aquaplane, he wasn't obeying that.

This is not a criticism of him in particular - none of the drivers slow down enough for double yellows, because if you're the only one who obeys them properly there's a huge disadvantage when nobody else does. As Hartstein says: human beings are on track and at risk in double yellow zones. Before we start looking at knee jerk safety reforms, get the drivers respecting the safety systems that already exist. Get them obeying the 'spirit' of the law ("how slow must I go to keep everyone safe?") rather than the letter ("how many tenths must I slow by to avoid punishment?").
They were still aquaplaning while doing 80 when they started the race behind the safety car, they should have moved the race forward.
True but that was Honda's call rather than the FIA's though as Honda own the track. Although given what has happened I can see some new rules regarding the SC being implemented in the event there's racing conditions like this again to try to prevent accidents like Bianchi's
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britpoint said:
Former F1 doc Gary Hartstein made a good point in one of his blogs: double-waved yellows were being shown in the danger zone. They mean "slow down and be prepared to stop". If Jules was going fast enough to aquaplane, he wasn't obeying that.

This is not a criticism of him in particular - none of the drivers slow down enough for double yellows, because if you're the only one who obeys them properly there's a huge disadvantage when nobody else does. As Hartstein says: human beings are on track and at risk in double yellow zones. Before we start looking at knee jerk safety reforms, get the drivers respecting the safety systems that already exist. Get them obeying the 'spirit' of the law ("how slow must I go to keep everyone safe?") rather than the letter ("how many tenths must I slow by to avoid punishment?").
They were still aquaplaning while doing 80 when they started the race behind the safety car, they should have moved the race forward.
It was raining all day long. Moving the race forward would have made no difference to the fact it would have been a wet race. Also they were only on inters when the accident happened. Weather conditions weren't bad enough for a safety car/red flag, Jules just made a mistake, same as Sutil. Just very unlucky it was at the exact same part of the track as Sutil's car was being moved
Link to comment
Share on other sites

APR193 said:
Britpoint said:
Former F1 doc Gary Hartstein made a good point in one of his blogs: double-waved yellows were being shown in the danger zone. They mean "slow down and be prepared to stop". If Jules was going fast enough to aquaplane, he wasn't obeying that.

This is not a criticism of him in particular - none of the drivers slow down enough for double yellows, because if you're the only one who obeys them properly there's a huge disadvantage when nobody else does. As Hartstein says: human beings are on track and at risk in double yellow zones. Before we start looking at knee jerk safety reforms, get the drivers respecting the safety systems that already exist. Get them obeying the 'spirit' of the law ("how slow must I go to keep everyone safe?") rather than the letter ("how many tenths must I slow by to avoid punishment?").
They were still aquaplaning while doing 80 when they started the race behind the safety car, they should have moved the race forward.
It was raining all day long. Moving the race forward would have made no difference to the fact it would have been a wet race. Also they were only on inters when the accident happened. Weather conditions weren't bad enough for a safety car/red flag, Jules just made a mistake, same as Sutil. Just very unlucky it was at the exact same part of the track as Sutil's car was being moved
Pretty sure they were on full wets?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

APR193 said:
Britpoint said:
Former F1 doc Gary Hartstein made a good point in one of his blogs: double-waved yellows were being shown in the danger zone. They mean "slow down and be prepared to stop". If Jules was going fast enough to aquaplane, he wasn't obeying that.

This is not a criticism of him in particular - none of the drivers slow down enough for double yellows, because if you're the only one who obeys them properly there's a huge disadvantage when nobody else does. As Hartstein says: human beings are on track and at risk in double yellow zones. Before we start looking at knee jerk safety reforms, get the drivers respecting the safety systems that already exist. Get them obeying the 'spirit' of the law ("how slow must I go to keep everyone safe?") rather than the letter ("how many tenths must I slow by to avoid punishment?").
They were still aquaplaning while doing 80 when they started the race behind the safety car, they should have moved the race forward.
It was raining all day long. Moving the race forward would have made no difference to the fact it would have been a wet race. Also they were only on inters when the accident happened. Weather conditions weren't bad enough for a safety car/red flag, Jules just made a mistake, same as Sutil. Just very unlucky it was at the exact same part of the track as Sutil's car was being moved
Pretty sure they were on full wets?
The McLarens only, but I think it was the right time since the rain was getting heavier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused, isn't the roll hoop part of the chassis and meant to be really strong?
What part of that is confusing for you?
The roll hoop is meant to be strong enough to not shave off like it did for Bianchi is it not?
under normal circumstances in a normal crash yes but against a JCB it's not going to stand much chance
What sharp said! except it was a CAT not a JCB. The car wedged under a 6 tonne vehicle at potentially 150kph +, if that roll hoop hadn't of broken, he would probably have still been wedged, more force would have transferred to his body and we would now know of a material stronger than any that exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused, isn't the roll hoop part of the chassis and meant to be really strong?
What part of that is confusing for you?
The roll hoop is meant to be strong enough to not shave off like it did for Bianchi is it not?
under normal circumstances in a normal crash yes but against a JCB it's not going to stand much chance
What sharp said! except it was a CAT not a JCB. The car wedged under a 6 tonne vehicle at potentially 150kph +, if that roll hoop hadn't of broken, he would probably have still been wedged, more force would have transferred to his body and we would now know of a material stronger than any that exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...