SC: Why 10s penalty and pits closed

[grantb4]

I don't understand these "new" rules. I'm guessing they stole the idea from US racing. If a guy is going to get penalized for fueling under the SC, then what's the point of also having the pit exit closed? Wouldn't one or the other be sufficient?

[DonJippo]

I don't understand these "new" rules. I'm guessing they stole the idea from US racing. If a guy is going to get penalized for fueling under the SC, then what's the point of also having the pit exit closed? Wouldn't one or the other be sufficient?

Pit exit closed is related to this rule...


Subject to the requirements of 40.6 above, whilst the safety car is in operation, competing cars may enter the pit lane, but may only rejoin the track when the green light at the end of the pit lane is on. It will be on at all times except when the safety car and the line of cars following it are about to pass or are passing the pit exit . A car rejoining the track must proceed at an appropriate speed until it reaches the end of the line of cars behind the safety car.Source: http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/16A57B4C6E078BC7C12573FB00429D39/$FILE/1-2008%20F1%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%2022-02-2008.pdf?Openelement

[maximilian]

Rules are fine and good, but what is the reason for having such a rule in the first place? It seems a bit arbitrary to me... why is it necessary to close the pits at all? And why NOT let people dive into them as soon as the SC comes out?

[DonJippo]

Rules are fine and good, but what is the reason for having such a rule in the first place? It seems a bit arbitrary to me... why is it necessary to close the pits at all? And why NOT let people dive into them as soon as the SC comes out?

Reason is here,


From the time at which the "SAFETY CAR DEPLOYED" message is displayed no car may enter the pit lane for the purpose of refuelling until all cars on the track have formed up in a line behind the safety car and the message "PIT LANE OPEN" is shown on the timing monitors. A ten second time penalty (see Article 16.3b) will be imposed on any driver who enters the pit lane and whose car is refuelled before the second message is shown on the timing monitors. However, any car which was in the pit entry or pit lane when the safety car was deployed will not incur a penalty.
2008 F1 Sporting Regulations 25 of 43 22nd February 2008
If it is deemed necessary for the safety car to use the pit lane (see 40.11 below) cars following it will not incur a penalty but may not stop in their designated garage areas for the purpose of refuelling until the message "PIT LANE OPEN" is shown on the timing monitors. A ten second time penalty will be imposed on any driver who stops in his designated garage area and whose car is refuelled before the second message is shown on the timing monitors.Source http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/16A57B4C6E078BC7C12573FB00429D39/$FILE/1-2008%20F1%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%2022-02-2008.pdf?Openelement

I believe this is also the reason why Massa did not refuel during his first pitstop and they only changed the nose cone for his car.

[BDunnell]

Having seen its effects today, I'm not sure I like this rule. I can't quite see the point of it, unlike the rule Barrichello broke about not exiting the pits when the train of cars is about to approach. There is a reason for that. But why not allow refuelling at any point, rather than imposing another confusing regulation? It's not as if it makes the racing any more exciting or any safer. While Massa did most of the damage to his race himself, he didn't deserve to have to pit twice because of his first corner crash.

[Sleeper]

If I remember correctly, a couple of years ago there were a number of SC priods that started after one or two of the leaders had passed the pitlane while those behind all dived in, causing those that had passed the pit entry before the SC came out to loose a lot of time stuck behind the SC. It led to a number of drivers having their races ruined on different occasions and it was thought that the borrowing the pit lane closer rule from the states would help to make it fairer.

I dont think thats worked out in practice and theirs always going to be the chance that someone gets done over in SC period regardless.

[Easy Drifter]

It also has to do with the number of crew allowed to work on the cars. If everyone came in together there is a much greater chance of a pit lane accident.
With all the different fuel stratagies in play this is unlikely though.

[jso1985]

I think it also has to do with making all drivers drive past the accident area for the first time behind the SC and not on full speed after leaving the pits and trying to catch the SC

[BDunnell]

I'm still not convinced by any of these explanations, personally. Getting everyone into line behind the safety car seemed to take an age in Melbourne. It would have been especially unfair on Alonso, who almost ran out of fuel, had his race been ruined by it.

[PSfan]

Well, I'm still inclined to believe the rule to close pit lane until all the cars have bunched up behind the SC is a result of some McLeran tactics a few years back that had Kimi get his pitstop done while Montoya held everybody up. I'm not sure if the rule that allows to repair the cars came out afterwards, but it does make sense to allow cars that may have been damaged in the incident that caused the safety car period to be able to make repairs and continue instead of having to do a couple laps that may cause moy, and maybe unreparable damage or even worse, cause the car to become stranded on the circuit and cause the safety car period to last longer.

On another note, It was suggested that Toro Rosso brought bourdais in twice during one of the safety car periods so he could put on the softs for 1 lap, and fulfill that rule requirement, I'm just wondering if they should (or are) allowing tire changes while the pits are closed, and if so, maybe they shouldn't? Bourdais did gain alot from it...

And on another side note, I was watching Sebring and a car during that race came in while the pits where closed for much the same reason as Rubens in the Australian GP. I just wonder if they would have held him there, and only fueled him once the pits where open, if that would have been a better option then fueling up and going out, then getting the 10sec penalty?

[Daniel]

I'm still not convinced by any of these explanations, personally. Getting everyone into line behind the safety car seemed to take an age in Melbourne. It would have been especially unfair on Alonso, who almost ran out of fuel, had his race been ruined by it.

I personally think the teams should be able to inform the race director that they're coming in for fuel in a certain amount of laps and if a SC comes out in that time then they can still go in. Why should you be forced to take the chance of running out of fuel rather than taking the penalty just because someone has a crash at a time which isn't good for you :confused:

A team could use this rule to their advantage if they really wanted to....

Imagine Hamilton is leading with only one lap of fuel left. Massa could park his car somewhere dangerous which would then force the pacecar out which closes the pits so then Hamilton can't come in and if he does he gets a 10 second penalty and drops right down the leaderboard and Kimi takes the lead. All in theory of course......

I just fail to see the point of the rule to be honest :confused: I can understand the pit exit being closed but this is just silly.

[airshifter]

Imagine Hamilton is leading with only one lap of fuel left. Massa could park his car somewhere dangerous which would then force the pacecar out which closes the pits so then Hamilton can't come in and if he does he gets a 10 second penalty and drops right down the leaderboard and Kimi takes the lead. All in theory of course......




How dare you suggest a Ferrari driver would intentionally park his car in a dangerous position on track!





I hate the rule. I think Kimi was ready to dive in and then swerved out, and if Rubens was about to run out of fuel then he had to pit. I do understand the light at pit exit, but this could easily be changed to force cars on track to stay to the opposite side of the pit exit when passing it. Telemetry could be used to show which car was ahead at pit exit, and where the exiting car enters the field.

With telemetry from the cars they could also make a simple rule to exclude cars from the refueling penalty if they in fact had no choice.

[Osella]

Well, I'm still inclined to believe the rule to close pit lane until all the cars have bunched up behind the SC is a result of some McLeran tactics a few years back that had Kimi get his pitstop done while Montoya held everybody up.

No, that tactic was ruled out when the FIA said that cars must stay within a certain distance of each other and maintain a consistent speed behind the safety car.

However, I still think this rule is stupid.

Yes, I agree you should not have cars at racing speed trying to catch up with the pack if there is an accident and course workers around the track as we had with the old rules. But surely if a car is running out of fuel (as in Barrichello's case) they should be allowed to pit anytime without penalty..

I think Daniel's suggestion of informing race control of the pitstops is an interesting one, but will penalise teams who could pit a few laps early under SC conditions and gain an advantage through a quick switch of tactics as they would still receive a penatly under this proposed system.

Of course, this could all play into a scenario where 3-stop or 2-stop races become unworkable at some circuits, so everyone will run plenty of fuel to avoid running out, and overtaking must happen on the track instead of through tactics..

[Daniel]

If had my way you'd still be able to come into the pits under sc when they open the pits. Just that if you already had a stop arranged you could do it whenever and not get a penalty.

[BDunnell]

Yes, I agree you should not have cars at racing speed trying to catch up with the pack if there is an accident and course workers around the track as we had with the old rules. But surely if a car is running out of fuel (as in Barrichello's case) they should be allowed to pit anytime without penalty..


And, of course, there are still those old-fashioned things called coloured flags which ought to be able to help drivers avoid incidents under the safety car...

[BobbyC]

The IRL has a rule on low fuel and safety car situations. If a driver must stop for fuel during the safety car when the pit is not yet open, the car may stop for a limited (3-5 laps) amount of fuel and then exit. His penalty will be he must pit again at the next stop, and in this case, I'd add the number of seconds he pitted during the closed pit situation add that time (3-4 seconds) as a pit penalty.

NASCAR's rule is you may perform a full stop, but you will be penalised by going to the end of the field on the ensuing restart. According to NASCAR's report from Sunday's Bristol race, 18 "pitting before pits were open" violations took place, mostly with cars that had been involved in incidents. Their penalty is to be sent to the end of the longest line. They took the penalty because of safety reasons.

An "end of the line" rule would be safer than a 10-second penalty, and in theory, would be a safer penalty.

But too the pit exit light disqualification is rather severe. Creep just a little over and that's a DQ. During safety car periods in NASCAR, a pit marshal accompanies the pit exit light (which is an overhead device about 4m tall designed by sponsor Whelen Engineering). The marshal assigned to the pit exit area is in communication with the safety car and race control, and releases the drivers when the pit exit light turns green. There were two violations of pit exit at Bristol Sunday -- the offending drivers were sent to the rear of the field for the restart.

[CNR]

i think if the team can show that the car would run out of fuel because of a safty car then there should be no penalty.


or the team should put ford before the race what lap that they intend to stop on.

[BDunnell]

The IRL has a rule on low fuel and safety car situations. If a driver must stop for fuel during the safety car when the pit is not yet open, the car may stop for a limited (3-5 laps) amount of fuel and then exit. His penalty will be he must pit again at the next stop, and in this case, I'd add the number of seconds he pitted during the closed pit situation add that time (3-4 seconds) as a pit penalty.

NASCAR's rule is you may perform a full stop, but you will be penalised by going to the end of the field on the ensuing restart. According to NASCAR's report from Sunday's Bristol race, 18 "pitting before pits were open" violations took place, mostly with cars that had been involved in incidents. Their penalty is to be sent to the end of the longest line. They took the penalty because of safety reasons.

An "end of the line" rule would be safer than a 10-second penalty, and in theory, would be a safer penalty.

But too the pit exit light disqualification is rather severe. Creep just a little over and that's a DQ. During safety car periods in NASCAR, a pit marshal accompanies the pit exit light (which is an overhead device about 4m tall designed by sponsor Whelen Engineering). The marshal assigned to the pit exit area is in communication with the safety car and race control, and releases the drivers when the pit exit light turns green. There were two violations of pit exit at Bristol Sunday -- the offending drivers were sent to the rear of the field for the restart.

You see, I feel that F1 should be free from complex regulations such as those. The old way of allowing people to pit when they wanted and do what they wanted to the cars — whether refuel or change tyres — was simple and worked. What we have now requires too much explanation, which is never good in sport, and is more unfair than the old rules.