Why wasn’t the race stopped? 11 laps behind the safety car! And who’s idea
was it to change the first chicane into that ridiculous version? What was
wrong with the old chicane? Never saw anybody life endangered by it. Do they
think by putting in slower chicanes and reducing average lap speeds that
they’ll improve the safety of F1? It is a joke as the cars are no slower
than last years so the theoretical reduction in speed doesn’t contribute to
any perceived safety improvement. If anything it is more dangerous as cars
have to brake from high speed to slower speeds for the tighter chicanes.
Where is this sport heading? If it wasn’t for Ferrari’s presence the sport
would end up imploding very quickly.
FF
In article <ZK2v5.48800$c5.133…@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,
Falcon Freak <Falcon_Fr…@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Why wasn’t the race stopped? 11 laps behind the safety car! And who’s
idea
> was it to change the first chicane into that ridiculous version? What
was
> wrong with the old chicane? Never saw anybody life endangered by it.
The old chicane was actually two chicanes, so I was a real pain on the
first lap (it’s bad enough trying to squeeze through one chicane.) The
new chicane is safer, since the old one was faster and the braking zone
was towards the side of the track. In the new chicane, a car with a
breaking problem could continue straight on instead of hitting the
barriers.
> Do they
> think by putting in slower chicanes and reducing average lap speeds
> that
> they’ll improve the safety of F1? It is a joke as the cars are no
slower
> than last years so the theoretical reduction in speed doesn’t
contribute to
> any perceived safety improvement.
Has there been any change in the regulations to slow the cars down this
season, compared to last? I can’t seem to recall any.
> If anything it is more dangerous as cars
> have to brake from high speed to slower speeds for the tighter
chicanes.
That doesn’t make sense. In your own road car, would it be safer to
loose control at 100 Mph than at 50 Mph?
I think the best solution would be to move the starting line closer to
the first chicane. That way the cars wouldn’t have such high speed when
approaching on the first lap.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
"Falcon Freak" wrote
> Why wasn’t the race stopped? 11 laps behind the safety car!
Well, nobody has yet come up with a convincing reason for the race to
have been stopped. The track wasn’t blocked. I’m sure that if Sid
Watkins had wanted the medical helicopter on the scene then it would
have been.
On the other hand, there are a couple of convincing reasons for not
stopping the race. One is that it sends a message to the drivers that
they can usually expect to get away with first lap incidents because
they will be able to start again in the spare. Secondly, the start is
the most dangerous part of the race and would have to be repeated.
> And who’s idea was it to change the first chicane into that
> ridiculous version? What was wrong with the old chicane?
> Never saw anybody life endangered by it.
I think the new chicane is an improvement. There were always first lap
incidents at the old one as well. At least this one doesn’t launch the
cars over the kerbs. Anyway, that wasn’t where the accident happened.
> Do they
> think by putting in slower chicanes and reducing average lap speeds
> that they’ll improve the safety of F1?
I’m not sure that, overall, the Monza chicanes have been tightened.
The configuration of the first one has been changed from a double to a
single and the others have new kerbs. I’m not convinced that the
accident had anything to do with circuit changes. It could have
happened anywhere.
–
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" –
Frank Gardner
Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false
Erik Runeson (d95…@csd.uu.se) wrote:
: Has there been any change in the regulations to slow the cars down this
: season, compared to last? I can’t seem to recall any.
Another tread in the front tire bringing it to 4 & equalling the rear, no?
–
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jpmuller
The universe may be as grand as they say
But it wouldn’t be missed if it didn’t exist (PH)
David Betts wrote:
> "Falcon Freak" wrote
> > Why wasn’t the race stopped? 11 laps behind the safety car!
> Well, nobody has yet come up with a convincing reason for the race to
> have been stopped. The track wasn’t blocked. I’m sure that if Sid
> Watkins had wanted the medical helicopter on the scene then it would
> have been.
It was said by Spanish TV that there was an ´unnoficcial agreement´ that
if nor Schumacher neither Hakkineen were in the melee, the race will not
be stopped (sic). But Spanish TV is not spacially trustable.
AGR
–
*====================================================================*
Angel Gutierrez Rodriguez |
Dpto. de Quimica Fisica y Analitica |
Universidad de Oviedo |
Oviedo (SPAIN) |
a…@sauron.quimica.uniovi.es |
*====================================================================*
>: Has there been any change in the regulations to slow the cars down
this
>: season, compared to last? I can’t seem to recall any.
> Another tread in the front tire bringing it to 4 & equalling the
rear, no?
Wasn’t that to the -99 season? If I’m not mistaken, grooved tires were
(re)introduced in -98 and an additional groove added for -99. No change
was made for the 2000 season. I could be mistaken though.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Erik Runeson wrote:
> Wasn’t that to the -99 season? If I’m not mistaken, grooved tires were
> (re)introduced in -98 and an additional groove added for -99. No change
> was made for the 2000 season. I could be mistaken though.
I have the same recollection, with DH complaining
that he couldn’t get the hang of the new tyres.
Bye,
Luca
Erik Runeson (d95…@csd.uu.se) wrote:
: Wasn’t that to the -99 season? If I’m not mistaken, grooved tires were
: (re)introduced in -98 and an additional groove added for -99. No change
: was made for the 2000 season. I could be mistaken though.
Feh, a personal temporal anomaly. My apologies…
–
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jpmuller
The universe may be as grand as they say
But it wouldn’t be missed if it didn’t exist (PH)
Falcon Freak wrote:
> Why wasn’t the race stopped?
Because there was a red car in the lead. Bernie’s already stated
publicly that he wants Schumacher to take the drivers’ championship
this season.
> 11 laps behind the safety car! And who’s idea
> was it to change the first chicane into that ridiculous version? What was
> wrong with the old chicane?
The old chicanes (there were two of them) were changed because
they were ineffective at slowing the cars down. The Speedvision
coverage showed footage of the field going through the old chicanes
last season. They just cut straight across the curbing without
slowing down at all.
The new chicane strongly resembles the Festival Curve at Portland
International Raceway. In fact, these days Monza is really just
Portland on steroids. IMO the Italians should decide whether they
want a racing circuit or a park. If the former, get rid of the
chicane and put a big runoff area and gravel trap at the entrance
to the Curva Grande, even if it means cutting down some trees.
> Never saw anybody life endangered by it. Do they
> think by putting in slower chicanes and reducing average lap speeds that
> they’ll improve the safety of F1? It is a joke as the cars are no slower
> than last years so the theoretical reduction in speed doesn’t contribute to
> any perceived safety improvement. If anything it is more dangerous as cars
> have to brake from high speed to slower speeds for the tighter chicanes.
Not really. What’s dangerous is the speed that they’d carry
through the next curve, the Curva Grande, without the chicane.
Anyone who gets in trouble in the chicane itself can just
straight-line it. Several drivers did just that.
> Where is this sport heading? If it wasn’t for Ferrari’s presence the sport
> would end up imploding very quickly.
Oh come, now. Ferrari’s got a great tradition and all that, but
I think you’re drastically overrating their importance.
–PSW
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:28:46 CST, Paul Winalski
<winal…@LSPACE.zko.dec.com> wrote:
>Falcon Freak wrote:
>> Why wasn’t the race stopped?
>Because there was a red car in the lead. Bernie’s already stated
>publicly that he wants Schumacher to take the drivers’ championship
>this season.
Not quite. Bernie has said that he would *like* to see Ferrari take
the championship, never that he *wants* to see it…
Bernie has also stated publicly that it would be a good thing if
Hakkinen could win three in a row…
Geoff Schuler
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Remove REMOVE. to send me e-mail.
————————————————
Fight Spam! Join CAUBE
(Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email)
http://www.caube.org.au/
Sorry for the late reply… I’ve been away.
"David Betts" <dav…@dbassoc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8piq17$ge$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk…
> "Falcon Freak" wrote
> > Why wasn’t the race stopped? 11 laps behind the safety car!
> Well, nobody has yet come up with a convincing reason for the race to
> have been stopped. The track wasn’t blocked. I’m sure that if Sid
> Watkins had wanted the medical helicopter on the scene then it would
> have been.
Hmm… true. BUT, don’t they red-flag races when cars stall on the
grid? (France 98) It seems inconsistent to me.
> I think the new chicane is an improvement. There were always first lap
> incidents at the old one as well. At least this one doesn’t launch the
> cars over the kerbs. Anyway, that wasn’t where the accident happened.
I don’t mind the chicane any more or less than any other chicane.
Most of them are silly anyway.
However, the comment about kerbs prompts me to ask:
Why do we have kerbs in the first place?
The kerbs make it easy for drivers to straight-line chicanes,
risking damage to their cars, as well as carrying more speed
through the corners (which some might say increases the
danger).
I’ve seen footage (and played racing games) from eras which
don’t have any/many kerbs. That seems a much better idea to me
It makes the driver skill more important – go too wide, and you
are on the grass, but go too tight and you are too slow.
So, surely the way to stop drivers moaning about kerbs would
be just to dig them up?!
Richard Walker (runnyhu…@mindless.com) wrote:
: Sorry for the late reply… I’ve been away.
: "David Betts" <dav…@dbassoc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:8piq17$ge$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk…
: > "Falcon Freak" wrote
: >
: > > Why wasn’t the race stopped? 11 laps behind the safety car!
: >
: > Well, nobody has yet come up with a convincing reason for the race to
: > have been stopped. The track wasn’t blocked. I’m sure that if Sid
: > Watkins had wanted the medical helicopter on the scene then it would
: > have been.
: Hmm… true. BUT, don’t they red-flag races when cars stall on the
: grid? (France 98) It seems inconsistent to me.
: > I think the new chicane is an improvement. There were always first lap
: > incidents at the old one as well. At least this one doesn’t launch the
: > cars over the kerbs. Anyway, that wasn’t where the accident happened.
: I don’t mind the chicane any more or less than any other chicane.
: Most of them are silly anyway.
: However, the comment about kerbs prompts me to ask:
: Why do we have kerbs in the first place?
: The kerbs make it easy for drivers to straight-line chicanes,
: risking damage to their cars, as well as carrying more speed
: through the corners (which some might say increases the
: danger).
: I’ve seen footage (and played racing games) from eras which
: don’t have any/many kerbs. That seems a much better idea to me
: It makes the driver skill more important – go too wide, and you
: are on the grass, but go too tight and you are too slow.
: So, surely the way to stop drivers moaning about kerbs would
: be just to dig them up?!
–
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jpmuller
The universe may be as grand as they say
But it wouldn’t be missed if it didn’t exist (PH)
"Richard Walker" wrote
> "David Betts" wrote
> > Well, nobody has yet come up with a convincing reason for the race
> > to have been stopped. The track wasn’t blocked. I’m sure that if
Sid
> > Watkins had wanted the medical helicopter on the scene then it
> > would have been.
> Hmm… true. BUT, don’t they red-flag races when cars stall on the
> grid? (France 98) It seems inconsistent to me.
They abort starts when cars stall on the grid before the green light
sequence. That is because it is highly dangerous to start the race
when there are stationary cars on the grid. If a race had to be
stopped after the start because stalled cars remain on the grid, that
could only be because the race director had reason to believe that an
obstruction might still be in place when the field came round again. I
don’t remember the specific instance you are referring to. Perhaps
somebody might like to look it up and tell us what actually happened.
> Why do we have kerbs in the first place?
> The kerbs make it easy for drivers to straight-line chicanes,
> risking damage to their cars, as well as carrying more speed
> through the corners (which some might say increases the
> danger).
No. Exactly the opposite. The kerbs make it harder to take short-cuts.
Without them, you have a flat surface which can be straight-lined with
impunity.
–
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" –
Frank Gardner
Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false
Richard Walker <runnyhu…@mindless.com> wrote:
: Sorry for the late reply… I’ve been away.
: "David Betts" <dav…@dbassoc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
:> Well, nobody has yet come up with a convincing reason for the race to
:> have been stopped. The track wasn’t blocked. I’m sure that if Sid
:> Watkins had wanted the medical helicopter on the scene then it would
:> have been.
: Hmm… true. BUT, don’t they red-flag races when cars stall on the
: grid? (France 98) It seems inconsistent to me.
One major reason I’ve seen given is that since the drivers had huge
worries about going through the first lap without a major accident and,
in fact, there was a major accident on the first lap, a restart would
have been extremely inadvisable. Seems fairly sensible to me – though
I’m not sure I’d have thought the same if I’d been at Monza and watching
so many laps under the pace car.
–
Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
UPDATED WWW: http://manor.york.ac.uk/
"David Betts" <dav…@dbassoc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8q74tn$o1d$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk…
> "Richard Walker" wrote
> > BUT, don’t they red-flag races when cars stall on the
> > grid? (France 98) It seems inconsistent to me.
> They abort starts when cars stall on the grid before the green light
> sequence. That is because it is highly dangerous to start the race
> when there are stationary cars on the grid. If a race had to be
> stopped after the start because stalled cars remain on the grid, that
> could only be because the race director had reason to believe that an
> obstruction might still be in place when the field came round again. I
> don’t remember the specific instance you are referring to. Perhaps
> somebody might like to look it up and tell us what actually happened.
Jos Verstappen had his first go in the Stewart-Ford, and stalled at
the race start. Meantime, Hakkinen and Coulthard made good starts,
and were leading from the Ferraris.
The race was red-flagged, and there was a restart. Interestingly,
both Ferraris jumped the McLarens…
Ron Dennis also wondered about the need for the restart. Of course,
he is slightly biased! ;-)
> > Why do we have kerbs in the first place?
> > The kerbs make it easy for drivers to straight-line chicanes,
> > risking damage to their cars, as well as carrying more speed
> > through the corners (which some might say increases the
> > danger).
> No. Exactly the opposite. The kerbs make it harder to take short-cuts.
> Without them, you have a flat surface which can be straight-lined with
> impunity.
Are you sure? Even if it was grass? Or gravel? Or mud?
How come so many kerbs are ‘launched over’? Do you think
they should make them higher?
"Richard Walker" wrote
> "David Betts" wrote
> > No. Exactly the opposite. The kerbs make it harder to take
> > short-cuts. Without them, you have a flat surface which
> > can be straight-lined with impunity.
> Are you sure? Even if it was grass? Or gravel? Or mud?
Yes. It’s quicker to go straight on. If there is nothing but a line at
the edge of the track, the drivers will ignore it.
> How come so many kerbs are ‘launched over’? Do you think
> they should make them higher?
The higher they are, the harder it is to drive over them, but the more
risk there is of them triggering an accident by launching a car into
the air. There has to be a compromise whereby the edge of the track
is clearly delineated and drivers are discouraged from
straight-lining, but the kerbs are relatively safe. I thought the new
Monza kerbs looked about right.
–
David Betts (dav…@motorsport.org.uk) (dav…@mini-list.org)
"In the end it’s always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" –
Frank Gardner
Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false