Formula 1 2014: Round 9 - British Grand Prix

Gillespy

F1 got away with it today. Kimi spinning across the track, quite easily could have been t boned by Massa and Chillton's car being hit by a stray tyre. Both must be high on the list of things drivers dread the most.

Infoanon

Gillespy wrote: »

F1 got away with it today. Kimi spinning across the track, quite easily could have been t boned by Massa and Chillton's car being hit by a stray tyre. Both must be high on the list of things drivers dread the most.

The wheels stayed on the car, but the tyre came off the rim, very similar to last years near miss when the tyres were expolding.Clearly an issue that needs to be looked at.

Massa has since commented that Kimi should have probably slowed before rejoining the track.

Zcott

Zcott wrote: »

Apparently Rosberg's gearbox was a bit older than Lewis's, hence the failing. Hopefully that won't happen again to either of them.

Conspiracy? :P

I could very easily be wrong but at the time of the crash I thought it was just a flimsy bit of tyre carcass that was lying around.

_rebelkid

Deleted User wrote: »

I could very easily be wrong but at the time of the crash I thought it was just a flimsy bit of tyre carcass that was lying around.

It was... after it had been shredded by the Roll Hoop on Chilton's Marussia.

_rebelkid

_rebelkid wrote: »

It was... after it had been shredded by the Roll Hoop on Chilton's Marussia.

Fair enough!

Slutmonkey57b

Button really needed to start pushing earlier than he did. We've heard this before when he holds pace in hand, then waits for the engineer to tell him to go. I know they've got to manage tyres and fuel but I think they've been too conservative more than once this year. They could have scored more points.

Zcott

On a different note I can't wait to get away from this weekend's Hamilton fest on both Sky and the BBC :-(

_rebelkid

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Button really needed to start pushing earlier than he did. We've heard this before when he holds pace in hand, then waits for the engineer to tell him to go. I know they've got to manage tyres and fuel but I think they've been too conservative more than once this year. They could have scored more points.

I think today McLaren weren't conservative on fuel. Button was marginal the entire time he was out, so he actually managed fairly well I feel. As he said himself, 1 more lap, or even half a lap, and he would have gotten third.

Magnussen was the disappointment today. He could have jumped both Vettel and Alonso, but he didn't have the pace. He lost out hugely.

The problem I have with McLaren is very much the same as EJ has with them. Everyone says how McLaren has the resources and the people and everything else to get back in too form, but in reality they don't. 6 years ago when they won the championship, the entire company was an F1 team. And they kept up that performance into 2011. Then they split into the Electronics Company, a Road Car Manufacturer and an F1 team. McLaren HAVE the resources, but 2 thirds aren't working on performance. And the same goes for Ferrari: the old adage of "if Ferrari are winning races, their road cars are awful" is true. To quote James May: "If you have 50-60 people working on a wiper for a road car, how can you expect to win an F1 race?".

flazio

Had to go to work so I have just finished watching the re run on Setanta. That was fun watching the Alonso /Vettel battle with Horner on the radio.

Slutmonkey57b

Actually, looking at the lap charts, Button's times actually remained relatively steady. The delta was as much to do with Daniel losing time as button gaining it.

Still a lot of work for McLaren to do with a car that is effectively obsolete now with a new power train for next year.

Yeah I really think McLaren took their eye off the ball by having a new engine this year and another next year. Can't imagine them advancing all that quickly next year unless Honda perform some magic.

doodahump

On another note,is it just me or does anyone else think that the types of crash this year indicate a serious accident or even fatality is firmly a possibilty in the sport again? I feel with the added torque,general stability of the cars that a serious shunt is a distinct possibility. After the gutierrez/maldonado incident in Australia or was it Bahrain , then the Massa,Perz crash (40+ G) and Raikonens 47G or whatever crash in British GP I would be concerned that given the wrong set of circumstances(for example if raikonnen had hit that barrier at a slightly diffent angle) a serious injury is very possible. I wonder if the lack of fatalities since 94 makes the drivers and teams a little complacent. Hope Im wrong but it just strikes me that there is more of a danger element this year with the cars.

Myrddin

doodahump wrote: »

On another note,is it just me or does anyone else think that the types of crash this year indicate a serious accident or even fatality is firmly a possibilty in the sport again? I feel with the added torque,general stability of the cars that a serious shunt is a distinct possibility. After the gutierrez/maldonado incident in Australia or was it Bahrain , then the Massa,Perz crash (40+ G) and Raikonens 47G or whatever crash in British GP I would be concerned that given the wrong set of circumstances(for example if raikonnen had hit that barrier at a slightly diffent angle) a serious injury is very possible. I wonder if the lack of fatalities since 94 makes the drivers and teams a little complacent. Hope Im wrong but it just strikes me that there is more of a danger element this year with the cars.

F1 is the safest it has ever been. The fact that there were no injuries (Kimi's bruised ankle is all) from the crashes you mention above show that safety has never been better.

Going Strong

Myrddin wrote: »

F1 is the safest it has ever been. The fact that there were no injuries (Kimi's bruised ankle is all) from the crashes you mention above show that safety has never been better.

That's a daring claim. Car vs barrier impacts might be theoretically safer but flying debris (Henry Surtees) or an entire car sliding over the cockpit area of another one (Alonso & Grosjean at Spa 2012) are still big risks.

Myrddin

Going Strong wrote: »

That's a daring claim. Car vs barrier impacts might be theoretically safer but flying debris (Henry Surtees) or an entire car sliding over the cockpit area of another one (Alonso & Grosjean at Spa 2012) are still big risks.

But they've always been big risks, it's nothing specific to the modern era. (safety where it can be improved has been continually looked at/improved over the last few decades meaning today, F1 is the safest it has ever been. It's not safe by any means, but there are no past era's that would have been considered safer)

Going Strong

I don't know. The cars can still be flipped over easily enough or be launched into the air and over the barriers and all it takes is for it to happen in the wrong place.

Myrddin

Going Strong wrote: »

I don't know. The cars can still be flipped over easily enough or be launched into the air and over the barriers and all it takes is for it to happen in the wrong place.

That has all happened though, Gutierrez in Bahrain, Kimi in Silverstone, Grosjean at Spa 2012, Webber in Valencia 2010, Kubica in Canada 2007, Webber/Aonso in Brazil 2003...there's so many examples of massive crashes where the lives of the drivers have been saved due to improved safety over the years...

greedygoblin

Myrddin wrote: »

F1 is the safest it has ever been. The fact that there were no injuries (Kimi's bruised ankle is all) from the crashes you mention above show that safety has never been better.

That exact same argument was used at the start of that infamous weekend at Imola in 1994. After the Rubens Barrichello crash on the Friday his survival was put down to the huge leaps in safety measures that had occurred in the sport in the preceding years. However, at the end of the weekend two drivers were dead. Formula 1 has had a good run since then. Some big accidents but luckily no driver fatalities.

Going back to the Maldonado incident, is this the 2nd time we've seen a car flipped/ nearly flipped due to one of these side-on impacts (Melbourne and Silverstone)? I can't recall any others. Even so, is it worth arguing that the reduced nose height of the cars is a contributing factor to this kind of scenario? In my view it is. Clearly, these regulations were implemented to stop accidents similar to Mark Webbers in Valencia a few years ago where he became airborne. However, I think the regulations have had unseen consequences and maybe gone slightly too far now in terms of nose height, to the point where any side-on impact could see a car being flipped.

Myrddin

greedygoblin wrote: »

That exact same argument was used at the start of that infamous weekend at Imola in 1994. After the Rubens Barrichello crash on the Friday his survival was put down to the huge leaps in safety measures that had occurred in the sport in the preceding years. However, at the end of the weekend two drivers were dead. Formula 1 has had a good run since then. Some big accidents but luckily no driver fatalities.

Maybe I'm not explaining my thoughts correctly, I'm not saying F1 is safe...it's a motorsport, it'll never truly be safe. But improvements in safety are an upward trend, not a backwards one. They don't decrease safety in F1, so naturally, safety just improves year by year. Next year will probably be safer than this year, or at the very least, is very unlikely to be more dangerous, & so on.

Going back to the Maldonado incident, is this the 2nd time we've seen a car flipped/ nearly flipped due to one of these side-on impacts (Melbourne and Silverstone)? I can't recall any others. Even so, is it worth arguing that the reduced nose height of the cars is a contributing factor to this kind of scenario? In my view it is. Clearly, these regulations were implemented to stop accidents similar to Mark Webbers in Valencia a few years ago where he became airborne. However, I think the regulations have had unseen consequences and maybe gone slightly too far now in terms of nose height, to the point where any side-on impact could see a car being flipped.

The low noses are to prevent one car sliding on top of another, & potentially decapitating a driver. Perhaps they're more inclined to flip a car, that's debatable. But in that event, as we've seen already this year, the drivers are really well protected when a car flips. Because their head is exposed, they are not so well well protected from cars sliding over the body of the car (as is naturally the case with open wheel/cockpit racing) hence the flip is probably more desirable an outcome.

Slutmonkey57b

The problem isn't the sport, or the cars, or the technology. It's the drivers.

Dangerous, incompetent drivers are not being punished for doing horrifically stupid things.

Maldonado should have been banned in 2006, and his ban should have stuck. Grosjean should also have been banned for longer. Kimi should have been banned this weekend. Bianchi in Monaco used his car like a battering ram.

Some drivers approach races like a destruction derby. They should be put on the sidelines for significant periods.

SnowDrifts

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Kimi should have been banned this weekend.

Seriously? He ran wide onto a tarmac run-off area and kept his foot in but when he rejoined the track he hit a massive hollow at the track edge and lost the back end. I would imagine that hollow will be filled in by next year.

Myrddin

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The problem isn't the sport, or the cars, or the technology. It's the drivers.

Dangerous, incompetent drivers are not being punished for doing horrifically stupid things.

Maldonado should have been banned in 2006, and his ban should have stuck. Grosjean should also have been banned for longer. Kimi should have been banned this weekend. Bianchi in Monaco used his car like a battering ram.

Some drivers approach races like a destruction derby. They should be put on the sidelines for significant periods.

I'd agree, but only to an extent. It is competitive racing after all. It'd be pretty boring if drivers were afraid to push hard, because if something goes wrong, it'll cost them too much.

Donnelly117

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The problem isn't the sport, or the cars, or the technology. It's the drivers.

Dangerous, incompetent drivers are not being punished for doing horrifically stupid things.

Maldonado should have been banned in 2006, and his ban should have stuck. Grosjean should also have been banned for longer. Kimi should have been banned this weekend. Bianchi in Monaco used his car like a battering ram.

Some drivers approach races like a destruction derby. They should be put on the sidelines for significant periods.

Kimi banned for this weekend? Why? He started the race miles out of position and, while he shouldn't have kept the boot in while off the track there was nothing overly dangerous about what he did. There's no way you can compare what happened to Kimi to Maldonado, Grojean and the rest.
Given Kimi's very clean record in F1 I think its ridiculous to suggest banning him for a crash that he could do little about.

I agree with you on the rest of those incidents. Maldonado is a liability and the grojean of that era just didn't think about what he was doing. The stewards of the last few years have been very hit and miss with penalties!

doodahump

Agree to an extent with all comments, just think the cars are still getting faster and coupled with some extra instability since the new powertrain was introduced and the cars just not sticking like they used to I wonder if the perfect storm will allow a serious injury. As to Kimis accident I would agree that was just bad luck with that hollow destablising the car and would in no way blame him for that accident.And of course the fact he walked away with mere brusing is testament to the superb safety engineered into modern f1 cars but its the sheer force he hit that barrier at worrys me. The body is not naturally built to survive impacts of 47G and it was just the angle he hit that barrier at that protected him in my view.

greedygoblin

Myrddin wrote: »

The low noses are to prevent one car sliding on top of another, & potentially decapitating a driver. Perhaps they're more inclined to flip a car, that's debatable. But in that event, as we've seen already this year, the drivers are really well protected when a car flips. Because their head is exposed, they are not so well well protected from cars sliding over the body of the car (as is naturally the case with open wheel/cockpit racing) hence the flip is probably more desirable an outcome.

True enough. A flipped car is more likely the better of the two. However I've seen it argued on here in the past that the new noses could act like a ramp in the case where a car spins round into oncoming traffic (a bit like that Schumacher accident a few seasons ago). And i know that while they are changing the regulations around the nose area for next season (even if it is only for aesthetic reasons) I'm still not completely sold on the idea that they do anything to improve the cars from a safety point of view.

Clearly I'm not a fan of these noses :pac:

doodahump

doodahump wrote: »

Agree to an extent with all comments, just think the cars are still getting faster and coupled with some extra instability since the new powertrain was introduced and the cars just not sticking like they used to I wonder if the perfect storm will allow a serious injury. As to Kimis accident I would agree that was just bad luck with that hollow destablising the car and would in no way blame him for that accident.And of course the fact he walked away with mere brusing is testament to the superb safety engineered into modern f1 cars but its the sheer force he hit that barrier at worrys me. The body is not naturally built to survive impacts of 47G and it was just the angle he hit that barrier at that protected him in my view.

They're not faster than last year and the crashes had little if anything to do with the new regulations generally. It's good to see the drivers not just being able to put the foot down the whole time.

Things are about as safe as they can be IMO, most future measures are likely to be too much of a trade-off for excitement and competition for my liking.

Landoflemon

I hope I'm not taking the thread off course at all, but is there any way to catch this race online? Missed it, and then someone spoiled the result for me, but I'd still like to watch it.

Slutmonkey57b

Should Kimi have been banned? I definitely think if Grosjean deserved a one race ban for using his car like a missile, Kimi deserves the same. Actually, I'd have banned Grosjean before that, and for longer than one race, but that's beside the point.

The only reason Kimi ended up in that situation was because of a stupid, greedy desire to use all the runoff for as long as possible at top speed. He treated it like part of the race track, and it isn't. He only rejoined where he did because he ran out of tarmac. As it happens, he still ran out.

Going off the track was an accident. What happened afterwards was deliberate, wilful, dangerous, selfish stupidity. I'm disappointed to see the argument "he started out of position and wanted to make up places" raise its head. That's his problem and he shouldn't be allowed to put other lives in danger so he can get back to where the thinks he "deserves" to be. He should have rejoiced at a clean part of the track, at a safe speed. You'd expect that sort of lunacy from an amateur at a rallycross event but it's got no place in f1.

SnowDrifts

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Should Kimi have been banned? I definitely think if Grosjean deserved a one race ban for using his car like a missile, Kimi deserves the same. Actually, I'd have banned Grosjean before that, and for longer than one race, but that's beside the point.

The only reason Kimi ended up in that situation was because of a stupid, greedy desire to use all the runoff for as long as possible at top speed. He treated it like part of the race track, and it isn't. He only rejoined where he did because he ran out of tarmac. As it happens, he still ran out.

Going off the track was an accident. What happened afterwards was deliberate, wilful, dangerous, selfish stupidity. I'm disappointed to see the argument "he started out of position and wanted to make up places" raise its head. That's his problem and he shouldn't be allowed to put other lives in danger so he can get back to where the thinks he "deserves" to be. He should have rejoiced at a clean part of the track, at a safe speed. You'd expect that sort of lunacy from an amateur at a rallycross event but it's got no place in f1.

Just completely disagree. Have you ever seen a driver who runs wide onto these tarmac runoffs lift off and slow down? It doesn't happen....

Also... how safe would it be re-joining the track at a reduced speed when there is a train of cars travelling at 150mph+ that will have to take evasive action as a result of a much slower car on track catching them out.

Gillespy

I think Massa said he should have lifted.

Nikki Lauda - "Kimi made a mistake, quite simply he went wide, but why does he come in balls out and then crashes? Hopefully nothing happened, but it was unnecessary."

Hard to argue a case for Kimi. As much inconsistency in the fandom as there is with the stewards.

Slutmonkey57b

LIGHTNING wrote: »

What`s he supposed to do back off and let the field past? He tried to come back onto the track at racing speed. It didn`t work out these things happen, nobody has mentioned penalties and I haven`t heard any of the drivers or teams (or Marshall`s) complain about it either.

Racing happens on a track deliminated by two white lines.Racing outside those lines is the definition of against the rules. Is he supposed to stop altogether? No. Is he supposed to gain an advantage? No. What do the rules state? A driver must rejoin in a safe manner. Battering down the runoff area until the tarmac runs out, then diving back in at the last possible second is a pretty good definition of unsafe.

"But what about his race?"

Stuff his race. He made an error, went off the track and errors should cost the driver who makes them. That driver shouldn't be allowed to cost someone else their health or life just because they want to keep their foot in. If this were Maldonado would anyone see it as anything other than reckless greedy stupidity? Nope.

Except that there are areas painted green at the end of the run-off areas for the drivers to aim at to get back on the track. The whole point of that seems to be to allow or even encourage the drivers to use all of the run-off.

Slutmonkey57b

That's the first I've heard of "official re-entry" points. I'm pretty sure a driver isn't obliged to wait that long to re-join...

Slutmonkey57b

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

That's the first I've heard of "official re-entry" points. I'm pretty sure a driver isn't obliged to wait that long to re-join...

Not obliged, no, but why have them there if not to encourage their use. Same as how they don't have to park a broken car next to the orange parts of the armco.

Zcott

In this case it wasn't that he joined unsafely, it's that there was a rain gulley there which he hit at high speed at an angle which you wouldn't normally go at. Remove the rain gulley and there would have been no trouble.

Slutmonkey57b

Zcott wrote: »

In this case it wasn't that he joined unsafely, it's that there was a rain gulley there which he hit at high speed at an angle which you wouldn't normally go at. Remove the rain gulley and there would have been no trouble.

This point has been made several times. It has a fatal flaw.

Kimi didn't know what was on the edge of the track. He didn't care. He just drove across it at top speed, and assumed everything would be ok. That was an invalid assumption because he was off the track, and once off the track you can't assume it's going to be lovely and smooth, can you? No.

The rain gully was not at fault here. Kimi was, because he made the decisions. He had the entire length of the straight to rejoin the track safely. He chose to leave it until his options were "back on the track NOW, or hit the grass and watch the car flip". He misjudged it and hit a different part of the track which bumped his car. But the fault was all, entirely, his.

If you remove the rain gully, and at the next track he tries the same sh!t, but hits a kerb, are you going to blame the kerb? What about next time he's at spa, and decides to cruise up that runoff on the left hand side at the start, and rejoins at the crest of eau rouge? Are you going to blame the hill for unsighting the drivers behind?

He wasn't supposed to be there, he wasn't supposed to be travelling at that speed, and he shouldn't have left it so late. But he did.

None of that can be blamed on the rain gully.

Zcott

Afraid I don't agree with you here. He ran wide, and there is an access back on to the circuit which he took. At the speed he was travelling and at the angle he was pointing, directly taking the access back on to the track would have been at almost 90° to the circuit, which would be suicidal. Instead, he tried to join at the shallowest possible angle, in the way that motorway on-ramps minimise the angle you're turning at to get on the motorway.

At the very end of that narrow access is a rain gulley, which he clipped. Incidentally, the rain gulley is barely visible as it seems to be filled in with gravel. On modern tracks this isn't even possible - the kerbs are wide and flat, and there's plenty of smooth Tarmac runoff. High kerbs only exist in low speed corners where the chance of launching a car are very low.

Cookie_Monster

The real problem is there is a run off area there instead of a gravel trap, bring back the gravel!!

Slutmonkey57b

Zcott wrote: »

Afraid I don't agree with you here. He ran wide, and there is an access back on to the circuit which he took. At the speed he was travelling

No need to go any further there. He shouldn't have been travelling at that speed when attempting to rejoin the track.

What stopped him rejoining at a much earlier point in the track, at a lower speed, at the same angle?

Nothing apart from greed and dangerously bad judgement.

Zcott

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

No need to go any further there. He shouldn't have been travelling at that speed when attempting to rejoin the track.

What stopped him rejoining at a much earlier point in the track, at a lower speed, at the same angle?

Nothing apart from greed and dangerously bad judgement.

You can call it that but if he had lifted and waited until the entire pack went by he wouldn't have made it beyond karts. Track designers know that racing drivers will go off the track and keep the foot in, which is why there's that green access route onto the circuit. I don't see it as bad judgement, I see it as bad circuit design. They clearly tried to fill in the gulley as they knew it could be a safety issue but didn't fill it in enough.