Erm that didn't flip on the gravel. It turned over after it mullered the tyre wall.
CTA's F1 Popularity Working Group
- Thread starter Greenlantern101
- Start date
I have seen many an F1 car go off into the gravel and only a tiny number of them have flipped over, actually I have seen more barrel rolls this year than I have for a long time, most cars flipping have been due to contact with other cars and not due to gravel traps, also I see no evidence that barrel rolls are any more dangerous than any other kind of shunt in modern F1 cars they just look more spectacular...
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
Quicksand or lava
Piranha infested custard.
Broken glass scattered everywhere...
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
Better idea, just a 500ft drop
How about armco barriers! hang on that's Monaco isn't it...
soccerman17
Race Winner
Well we are definitely not engineers who should be put in charge of surfaces. But we do know that a change is needed so how about the FIA hire some actual engineers to look into runoff areas circuit by circuit and find solutions that fit the circuit, provide safety in each corner, and punish the drivers for going off line. Its really a case by case basis with differing layouts of tracks and size of runoff areas as well as speeds of corners.
Another.
Going straight on at a chicane should make your car slower for a time so you are penalised for doing so and loose any advantage you gained by doing it. But rather than do it in a high tech way, or by imposing driver penalties, (a turn off for casual fans) why not coat the drive through areas of chicanes with something like a thin film of sand. This would be picked up by the sticky tyres and make you slow for several corners.
Going straight on at a chicane should make your car slower for a time so you are penalised for doing so and loose any advantage you gained by doing it. But rather than do it in a high tech way, or by imposing driver penalties, (a turn off for casual fans) why not coat the drive through areas of chicanes with something like a thin film of sand. This would be picked up by the sticky tyres and make you slow for several corners.
The gravel traps were broadly ditched after the death of the marshal (whose name escapes me) at Monza in 2000.
Also, don't forget it is far easier for a driver to evacuate a car that has not inverted - Roger Williamson and Elio de Angeles would not have died if their cars stayed up.
The tarmac is safer, so for me it should stay, it would be feasible to punish using penalties if the will was there.
Also, don't forget it is far easier for a driver to evacuate a car that has not inverted - Roger Williamson and Elio de Angeles would not have died if their cars stayed up.
The tarmac is safer, so for me it should stay, it would be feasible to punish using penalties if the will was there.
If this was the incident in question was the death caused by the gravel trap or was it the fact that the wheels weren't tethered at this point.
Even so gravel traps are more dangerous for the open wheelers than tin tops.
Even so gravel traps are more dangerous for the open wheelers than tin tops.
It was due to an untethered wheel, but iirc this was when gravel started to be reevaluated, hence Tilke having 20th Century tracks (Sepang) covered in gravel, while Shanghai for example had only gravel in the pit entry!?
snowy
Champion Elect
Lasers or laser guided missiles could be mounted at the exits of corners and offenders could be obliterated...
That said, if you are going to use tech, why not use transponders to kick the pit lane speed limiter in if a car runs too far off the track. It would be a pure safety issue as it would prevent cars from bombing along over unsuitable ground and rejoining at almost racing speed. It could be set to activate if the car runs wide by over a car width.
I have experienced the effects of such a system in the online race game world.
GT5 had a system where if you cut a corner or barged an opponent then you would be limited instantly. What would generally happen though is as you reduced speed rapidly the car behind wouldn't expect you to be braking in that area and they would fly into the back of you. Not very safe really.
Transponders are fine, the technology is there so why not just use it to notify race control that track limits were exceeded and then the appropriate action taken.
GT5 had a system where if you cut a corner or barged an opponent then you would be limited instantly. What would generally happen though is as you reduced speed rapidly the car behind wouldn't expect you to be braking in that area and they would fly into the back of you. Not very safe really.
Transponders are fine, the technology is there so why not just use it to notify race control that track limits were exceeded and then the appropriate action taken.
snowy
Champion Elect
Is that similar to the technology used for shopping trolleys?
F1Yorkshire, I understand what you're saying but I wouldn't propose this system operates on the track but only when cars go off the track. So if more than one car went over the limit they would both be restricted at the same point and therefore slow down at the same point. The only issue would be if two cars ran off one behind the other and the system failed on the second then it would plow into the back of the first.
The problem as you already note is that race control already know when cars exceed the track limit but the resulting action changes from track to track and situation to situation. Take Alonso in Hungary, he cut the corner and left the track. What action he took to nulify any advantage was down to the driver and any action taken by the FIA would have confused the issue further. If a guy screws up his braking point and runs through a chicane would a drive through be proportional to the offence? Now if a guy deliberately runs over the chicane in order to prevent a pass, how does race control tell the difference?
Without wishing to re-open the Hamilton v Kimi in Spa thing but that proved as much as any other incident that "Gaining and advantage" is such a dubious statment as to be almost unquantafiable. At least a transponder limit would be fair to all .
snowy - Yes
The problem as you already note is that race control already know when cars exceed the track limit but the resulting action changes from track to track and situation to situation. Take Alonso in Hungary, he cut the corner and left the track. What action he took to nulify any advantage was down to the driver and any action taken by the FIA would have confused the issue further. If a guy screws up his braking point and runs through a chicane would a drive through be proportional to the offence? Now if a guy deliberately runs over the chicane in order to prevent a pass, how does race control tell the difference?
Without wishing to re-open the Hamilton v Kimi in Spa thing but that proved as much as any other incident that "Gaining and advantage" is such a dubious statment as to be almost unquantafiable. At least a transponder limit would be fair to all .
snowy - Yes
snowy
Champion Elect
There should be a wall to hit at every turn, if one driver pressurises another into making a mistake he should get the opportunity to pass. He shouldn't have to force the driver in front to make another mistake in the hope that he will run off and be handed a penalty because he made two mistakes.
Sausages! Sausages! Sausages!
You make a mistake, cut the corner, you lose position. End of.
Sausages! Sausages! Sausages!
You make a mistake, cut the corner, you lose position. End of.
Last edited:
Instead of automatically slowing the cars down which could also catch the drivers by surprise. The Alonso incident cider_and_toast mentions shows that some human input is required before action is taken.
Then we're back to the big question of how consistent the stewards are when it comes to assigning penalties.
At Canada we had an additional steward placed at the final corner, would it be so difficult to have a permanent steward who travels with the F1 circus whose one role is to determine if a car has gained an advantage or not when the transponder is triggered.
Then we're back to the big question of how consistent the stewards are when it comes to assigning penalties.
At Canada we had an additional steward placed at the final corner, would it be so difficult to have a permanent steward who travels with the F1 circus whose one role is to determine if a car has gained an advantage or not when the transponder is triggered.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
