Teams preventing SC rule change

[CNR]

http://www.homeofsport.com/f1/news/item.aspx?id=22110



That is the suspicion of Australian driver and GPDA director Mark Webber, who said he has heard that a few teams are preventing the required unanimity for a rule change to be put in place.

"But there needs to be unanimity and I have heard that some teams want to keep the current rules.


mclaren ?
ferrari ?
teams with no members in gpda

[Knock-on]

It can be pushed through under the "safety" banner

[Valve Bounce]

...............only if Max feels up to it.

[AndyL]

Can anyone think of a reason why some teams would want to keep the current rule?
Possibly if you're a mid-field or back-marking team, you might luck into a podium or some points when a front-runner has to refuel under the safety car. But that seems a stretch.

[jens]

I think some backmarkers (like Force India) might prefer the current SC rule. From their perspective such attitude is logical - if SC appears, they have a bigger chance of getting a good result with front runners getting a penalty or facing a drop to the back of the field. So yeah - I think the most uncompetitive teams might be blocking the change.

[K-Pu]

It´s possible... but these SC rules aren´t the "best of the world"...

[aryan]

The current SC rules are Good(TM)! in that they eliminate the previous problem we experienced with driviers rushing to pits when SC came out.

I also think they make SC less unfair. Before the you could lose or gain 10+ places if you happend to be at the right place (close to pits) when the SC was deployed. Now, whilst at least drivers keep their positions.

How about teams don't run on fumes? And always pit with one more lap worth of fuel in the car?

Problem solved.

[jens]

The current SC rules are Good(TM)! in that they eliminate the previous problem we experienced with driviers rushing to pits when SC came out.

I also think they make SC less unfair. Before the you could lose or gain 10+ places if you happend to be at the right place (close to pits) when the SC was deployed. Now, whilst at least drivers keep their positions.

How about teams don't run on fumes? And always pit with one more lap worth of fuel in the car?

Problem solved.

What? :s The only "real loss" I can remember, was Montoya in Canada in 2005. Besides that there have been no problems - everyone, who wanted, managed to pit and get a fair position, what he would realistically have had without SC session. At the moment it is unfair. Why should those, who have pitted just before SC, be the winners?

And that "rushing" into the pits wasn't actually a problem as there basically weren't any incidents with this. FIA simply visualizes the "problems".

And about your last sentences. Well, there actually isn't too much difference whether to pit and get a stop & go or pit one lap later and drop to the back of the field anyway.

[Azumanga Davo]

...............only if Max feels up to it.

Not now, he's got a headache...

[ioan]

At the moment it is unfair. Why should those, who have pitted just before SC, be the winners?

Exactly. Those who pit early are also those who qualified with less fuel on board, and thus are slower and less deserving than those who qualified with more fuel and didn't stop before the SC was deployed.

[SGWilko]

If we can have a pit lane speed limiter button, can't there be a SC speed limiter that is automatically activated when SC is deployed?

No one loses or gains then, do they?

Oh dear, am I dreaming of a perfect world again..... ;)

[JSH]

If we can have a pit lane speed limiter button, can't there be a SC speed limiter that is automatically activated when SC is deployed?

No one loses or gains then, do they?

Oh dear, am I dreaming of a perfect world again..... ;)

Now with a common ECU, there's no reason why it couldn't be done, especially as it's also done at most reputable Go-kart tracks(on the hire karts).

[aryan]

If we can have a pit lane speed limiter button, can't there be a SC speed limiter that is automatically activated when SC is deployed?

No one loses or gains then, do they?

Oh dear, am I dreaming of a perfect world again..... ;)


It is unsafe to remotely stop a car, which might be travelling at 250 mph to 50 without the driver knowing it. He can very easily go off, and be a danger to himself and the rest of the field. He might be in the middle of a tight corner going fast not knowing about the incident and if you just put a brake on him, you might as well order his decapitation.

You can't notify drivers that such a button will be activated in say 5 seconds through radio, because radio fails. In fact I believe there has not been a single race where at least someone's radio hasn't failed.

There is no universal safe speed. Think of Indianapolis 2004 where ralf had his crash. The appropriate speed at that particular section of the track was about 20 mph, and that was the speed the safety car was travelling at. At other times, the appropriate speed might be higher, as it mostly is. You need human observer, and experienced driver to lead the pack to set the pace, knowing what the safe pace is.

SC can easily coordinate and communicate with emergency services if they are being deployed in a specific part of the track, and will let fire extinguishers and/or ambulance pass. Drivers in your hypothetical situation will simply drive at the maximum controlled speed, with total disregard for such requirements.

I think you guys should read the word "safety car" a couple of times more, to perhaps see the safety aspect of it a bit more clearly.

[SGWilko]

It is unsafe to remotely stop a car, which might be travelling at 250 mph to 50 without the driver knowing it. He can very easily go off, and be a danger to himself and the rest of the field. He might be in the middle of a tight corner going fast not knowing about the incident and if you just put a brake on him, you might as well order his decapitation.

You can't notify drivers that such a button will be activated in say 5 seconds through radio, because radio fails. In fact I believe there has not been a single race where at least someone's radio hasn't failed.

There is no universal safe speed. Think of Indianapolis 2004 where ralf had his crash. The appropriate speed at that particular section of the track was about 20 mph, and that was the speed the safety car was travelling at. At other times, the appropriate speed might be higher, as it mostly is. You need human observer, and experienced driver to lead the pack to set the pace, knowing what the safe pace is.

SC can easily coordinate and communicate with emergency services if they are being deployed in a specific part of the track, and will let fire extinguishers and/or ambulance pass. Drivers in your hypothetical situation will simply drive at the maximum controlled speed, with total disregard for such requirements.

I think you guys should read the word "safety car" a couple of times more, to perhaps see the safety aspect of it a bit more clearly.

I take your points on board, and you make a bundle of sense......

....but.

The limiter does not need to physically stop a car, but prevent further acceleration. Surely, with GPS, you can program this limiter not to function in corners for the first 20 seconds of its deployment.

If drivers drove at a safe speed up until the safety car is reached, there would be no need for the silly rules we currently have.

But they don't, so we have these silly rules...... ;)

[PSfan]

It is unsafe to remotely stop a car, which might be travelling at 250 mph to 50 without the driver knowing it. He can very easily go off, and be a danger to himself and the rest of the field. He might be in the middle of a tight corner going fast not knowing about the incident and if you just put a brake on him, you might as well order his decapitation.

You can't notify drivers that such a button will be activated in say 5 seconds through radio, because radio fails. In fact I believe there has not been a single race where at least someone's radio hasn't failed.

There is no universal safe speed. Think of Indianapolis 2004 where ralf had his crash. The appropriate speed at that particular section of the track was about 20 mph, and that was the speed the safety car was travelling at. At other times, the appropriate speed might be higher, as it mostly is. You need human observer, and experienced driver to lead the pack to set the pace, knowing what the safe pace is.

SC can easily coordinate and communicate with emergency services if they are being deployed in a specific part of the track, and will let fire extinguishers and/or ambulance pass. Drivers in your hypothetical situation will simply drive at the maximum controlled speed, with total disregard for such requirements.

I think you guys should read the word "safety car" a couple of times more, to perhaps see the safety aspect of it a bit more clearly.


:up:


The limiter does not need to physically stop a car, but prevent further acceleration. Surely, with GPS, you can program this limiter not to function in corners for the first 20 seconds of its deployment.

I would really hate for a drivers race to be ruined if the "FIA" controlled speed limiter malfunctions, and doesn't shut off at the end of the safety car period or and while I can't think of a scenario at the moment, would really such if a driver may be caught up in an accident he may have been able to avoid if he could have accelerated out of the way of something...


If drivers drove at a safe speed up until the safety car is reached, there would be no need for the silly rules we currently have.

I'm not completely convinced that drivers driving to fast during the safety car period is the only reason for the current rules. We seen how the FIA takes to "johnny on the spot" benefits when non contending teams find themselves way ahead of where they should be... yah, a Force India car is lapping way quicker then everyone else on the wrong tires... lets bunch everyone up!!!

I still think the simplest solution to the current safety car issues is an FIA regulated reserve fuel tank. not stupid forced slow down buttons...

[Valve Bounce]

It is unsafe to remotely stop a car, which might be travelling at 250 mph to 50 without the driver knowing it. .

Where there's a will, there's a way in this day of modern technology. Large banks of coloured lights can be deployed around a track, so that if the yellow goes on, it means yellow in the area where the light is deployed. Red means stop asap (within reason), but with current F1 cars, this can be effected quickly by the drivers themselves.

When Rosberg crashed, the broken car and wreckage just about blocked the track, and cars filtered through very, very slowly. I believe that the race could have been red flagged there and then, with red flags going back to the previous corner, and yellow flags going back around the rest of the track. Now if these flags were replaced by large banks of lights, there would have been no difficulty in stopping all cars before they reached Rosberg's wrecked car. I say this because Rosberg blocked much of the track and the immediate implementation of such red banks of lights could have prevented someone coming through and T-boning Rosberg.

This would also have prevented cars from running over the carbon fibre debris and puncturing tyres; as it turned out, Hamilton did suffer a puncture just after he crossed the finish line.

I understand such lights will be installed for the night race in Singapore.


SC can easily coordinate and communicate with emergency services if they are being deployed in a specific part of the track, and will let fire extinguishers and/or ambulance pass. Drivers in your hypothetical situation will simply drive at the maximum controlled speed, with total disregard for such requirements.

I do not agree with this at all - this is the job of the marshals at the scene who can do all this long before the SC is even deployed. Communication should be via race control, surely. The SC car is there merely to control the speed of the following cars and provide the TV viewers with something to look at. It is my understanding that the SC is recalled into the pits by the the Chief Steward after reports from on site marshals - I don't think the driver of the SC makes that decision. If it is really pissing down, I don't think the driver of the SC can see that much to make any decision regarding any other vehicles like ambulances or fire engines on the track.

[AndyL]

If drivers drove at a safe speed up until the safety car is reached, there would be no need for the silly rules we currently have.


The current rules actually encourage fast driving under the safety car - when lapped cars are allowed to pass, they then rush to make up an entire lap. I think one driver actually did his fastest lap of the race up to that point under the safety car on Sunday, I can't remember who though.

[truefan72]

the rules are fine, just change the pit fueling option around, whereas the FIA receive the intended first fuel/pit stop window (+/- one lap)from each time prior to the start of the race ( or right when it starts) and then submit to the FIA/stewards, the next expected fuel/pit window (+/- one lap) after each stop. (this includesif they came in foor damage repair or whatever and change thier strategy etc. The information has to be recieved no later than one lap after the pit stop.

In this way, there are no surprises when a driver comes in ounder the SC rule, the pits remain open and nobody benefits from some unexpected change during the SC period.

simple enough.

Haven't figured out the penalties for late confirmation,
but a deviation from the pit strategy incurs a 10 sec penality which the teams serve by holding the cars for 10 seconds before any work/refuling/tyrechange can begin on the cars. there will be a steward at each pit to monitor (similar to Nascar and IRL)

[SGWilko]

The current rules actually encourage fast driving under the safety car - when lapped cars are allowed to pass, they then rush to make up an entire lap. I think one driver actually did his fastest lap of the race up to that point under the safety car on Sunday, I can't remember who though.

The idea behind allowing lapped cars to pass, and specifically when they are allowed to do so, is once the accident is cleared, and the SC is preparing to come in.

At this stage, it is fair to assume the drivers know where the problem is/was, and will not be travelling at full tilt....

[ioan]

there will be a steward at each pit to monitor (similar to Nascar and IRL)

No need for that, we have television around here! :p :
And the other teams will certainly report anything that isn't going by the rules! ;)

[aryan]

the rules are fine, just change the pit fueling option around, whereas the FIA receive the intended first fuel/pit stop window (+/- one lap)from each time prior to the start of the race ( or right when it starts) and then submit to the FIA/stewards, the next expected fuel/pit window (+/- one lap) after each stop.

Very bad idea. It would completely make pitstops inflexible.

Right now, team have the ability to pit earlier depending on race conditions. It is for example very common for leaders to pit earlier when they are faced with a string of backmarkers to lap.

I say the rules are fine, though the more I think of that reserved fuel tank, the more I like the idea. It's gonna be a b!tch to regulate though.

[Valve Bounce]

I say the rules are fine, though the more I think of that reserved fuel tank, the more I like the idea. It's gonna be a b!tch to regulate though.

I wonder what bunsen would think of that :p :

[ioan]

I wonder what bunsen would think of that :p :

Good one! :laugh: :up:

[CNR]

Very bad idea. It would completely make pitstops inflexible.

Right now, team have the ability to pit earlier depending on race conditions. It is for example very common for leaders to pit earlier when they are faced with a string of backmarkers to lap.

I say the rules are fine, though the more I think of that reserved fuel tank, the more I like the idea. It's gonna be a b!tch to regulate though.

if they pit before the safty car they will not need to pit under the safty car.
this would only be if thay needed to pit under the safty car.

[markabilly]

The current rules actually encourage fast driving under the safety car - when lapped cars are allowed to pass, they then rush to make up an entire lap. I think one driver actually did his fastest lap of the race up to that point under the safety car on Sunday, I can't remember who though.
My point exactly in some prior threads---the "safety aspect" only comes into play once everyone is lined up directly behind the car. Until then it is crazy and Wilko has a very valid point.

Indeed, the SC really does not make a lot of sense, except for the really really slow response of the FIA medical car stuff, as when Ralf sat in his smashed car ar Indy, whereas if it had been a champ or IRL race, Ralf would have been out and back to hospital, long before the old now retired doctor would have arrived.....but so what. This is F1!!!!We are already too good

[Knock-on]

I don't see any problem with the pit lane limiter kicking in during a SC incident but it's not very spectacular ;)

[ioan]

I don't see any problem with the pit lane limiter kicking in during a SC incident but it's not very spectacular ;)

If it happens when the cars are negotiating a turn like Eau Rouge or R130 than it get mighty spectacular, and I don't se any of them managing to keep the car on the black stuff if that happens.

[SGWilko]

If it happens when the cars are negotiating a turn like Eau Rouge or R130 than it get mighty spectacular, and I don't se any of them managing to keep the car on the black stuff if that happens.

Agreed, but I've said before, enhance the system with GPS, so it won't kick in mid corner at racing speed.......

[Knock-on]

If it happens when the cars are negotiating a turn like Eau Rouge or R130 than it get mighty spectacular, and I don't se any of them managing to keep the car on the black stuff if that happens.

I wasn't planning on just kicking them in :laugh:

You can have a 5 or 10 second warning period with a flashing light on the dash and an audible alarm on the helmet warning the drivers.

[Bagwan]

Having the limiter engaged while on track might make it a little hard to keep those tires warm enough for a restart .
50mph might not be fast enough , and it might end in the cars getting strung out , having slowed enough below the limiter speed to get some wheelspin , and brake warming .

[SGWilko]

Having the limiter engaged while on track might make it a little hard to keep those tires warm enough for a restart .
50mph might not be fast enough , and it might end in the cars getting strung out , having slowed enough below the limiter speed to get some wheelspin , and brake warming .

Think the old grey matter has lost it's temperature Baggy.....

The whole point behind the limiter thing is to take away the ability of the drivers to peg it back to the pits, right?

So, once the danger is clear, the limiter can be removed, and the cars follow the SC as now, warming up their tyres and brakes as normal.

Is that too much logic?

[Knock-on]

Having the limiter engaged while on track might make it a little hard to keep those tires warm enough for a restart .
50mph might not be fast enough , and it might end in the cars getting strung out , having slowed enough below the limiter speed to get some wheelspin , and brake warming .

As SGW says or failing that, keep them in formation until ready to restart and let them go.

After all, aren't we talking about banning tyre warmers?

[Bagwan]

Think the old grey matter has lost it's temperature Baggy.....

The whole point behind the limiter thing is to take away the ability of the drivers to peg it back to the pits, right?

So, once the danger is clear, the limiter can be removed, and the cars follow the SC as now, warming up their tyres and brakes as normal.

Is that too much logic?

Well , ok , if you want to tweak the idea in that direction , it'll be ok , then .
That changes it from a "grey matter" to a little more black and white , Stu .

[SGWilko]

Well , ok , if you want to tweak the idea in that direction , it'll be ok , then .
That changes it from a "grey matter" to a little more black and white , Stu .

;)

[Bagwan]

As SGW says or failing that, keep them in formation until ready to restart and let them go.

After all, aren't we talking about banning tyre warmers?

Also a good point , Mr. On .

My first comment was a bit too much on the devil's advocate side .

I'd actually like to see then held back by a mid-seventies Cortina , as safety car , going speeds we go on the road .
The majority of crashes could be cleaned up in one lap under the safety Cortina .

[SGWilko]

Also a good point , Mr. On .

My first comment was a bit too much on the devil's advocate side .

I'd actually like to see then held back by a mid-seventies Cortina , as safety car , going speeds we go on the road .
The majority of crashes could be cleaned up in one lap under the safety Cortina .

Lets settle for the Lotus Cortina, bring back a famous Marque to the F1 world?

[Bagwan]

Lets settle for the Lotus Cortina, bring back a famous Marque to the F1 world?
Ford not a famous enough marque for ya ?

Besides , the Lotus would be too fast , wouldn't it ?

[Azumanga Davo]

Lets settle for the Lotus Cortina, bring back a famous Marque to the F1 world?

I would only like that idea if Gerry Marshall was still with us. That might have "sped" up the process a little bit more. Plus could have been the most exciting safety car to watch ever. :D

[SGWilko]

Ford not a famous enough marque for ya ?

Besides , the Lotus would be too fast , wouldn't it ?

Yes, but not really a constructor in their own right for more than five minutes, were they? Well, they sort of were, but only because of, oh, what do you call that chap that run the team with Ford money in 1997?

Made not bad engines though, the Double Four Valve might have won the odd race here and there if I recall.... ;)

[PSfan]

I say the rules are fine, though the more I think of that reserved fuel tank, the more I like the idea. It's gonna be a b!tch to regulate though.

I don't think the reserve tank would be that hard to regulate. As I suggested in previous threads, a pigment could be added to the fuel so the the FIA could determine if the reserve fuel was used, along with a program in the ECU that could log when the reserve tank is used. (The coloured fuel would ensure that teams can't by-pass the ecu and run the reserve tank empty and only refill it during the final pit-stop aka running lighter then everyone else... ) The ECU can log weight of the reserve tank as well as when its activated and refilled...

[SGWilko]

I don't think the reserve tank would be that hard to regulate. As I suggested in previous threads, a pigment could be added to the fuel so the the FIA could determine if the reserve fuel was used, along with a program in the ECU that could log when the reserve tank is used. (The coloured fuel would ensure that teams can't by-pass the ecu and run the reserve tank empty and only refill it during the final pit-stop aka running lighter then everyone else... ) The ECU can log weight of the reserve tank as well as when its activated and refilled...

And if there is any controversy, Max will see to it that only Honda are penalised with, ooohhhh, lets say a 2 race ban.......

[PSfan]

And if there is any controversy, Max will see to it that only Honda are penalised with, ooohhhh, lets say a 2 race ban.......

Hadn't realised you where such a comedian on here, first the speed limiter button suggestion, and now making another "honda reserve tank" joke, man you crack me up... :wink: (shame Valve's comment was funnier, good thing this isns't a competition...)

Anyway, I somehow doubt that Honda would be the first team that had something found to be illegal on there car one year, only to have a similar device be deemed legal later. Also if I do recall, the FIA stewerts gave Honda to come clean when they asked point blank "is all the fuel out?" and Honda lied about it, so how much of the 2 race ban was for the extra tank, and how much was it for lying about the said fuel tank, and the fuel it was holding? And was the penalty for the extra fuel tank, or the car being under weight dry?

[SGWilko]

Hadn't realised you where such a comedian on here, first the speed limiter button suggestion, and now making another "honda reserve tank" joke, man you crack me up... :wink: (shame Valve's comment was funnier, good thing this isns't a competition...)

Anyway, I somehow doubt that Honda would be the first team that had something found to be illegal on there car one year, only to have a similar device be deemed legal later. Also if I do recall, the FIA stewerts gave Honda to come clean when they asked point blank "is all the fuel out?" and Honda lied about it, so how much of the 2 race ban was for the extra tank, and how much was it for lying about the said fuel tank, and the fuel it was holding? And was the penalty for the extra fuel tank, or the car being under weight dry?

Depends on how you define lie in this instance. The Honda fuel TANK was empty, but the collector, part of the pressurisation system and not classed as part of the tank, still had fuel in.

To answer either yes or no would have technically been both correct and false. :wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean:

[SGWilko]

Hadn't realised you where such a comedian on here, first the speed limiter button suggestion

Another example of my 'warped' SOH PSfan....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67984

;)

[PSfan]

Depends on how you define lie in this instance. The Honda fuel TANK was empty, but the collector, part of the pressurisation system and not classed as part of the tank, still had fuel in.

To answer either yes or no would have technically been both correct and false. :wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean:

While continueing this direction of discussion is probably better served in the H&N section, FIA described the Honda case as "bad faith", "fraudulent behaviour"


Another example of my 'warped' SOH PSfan....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67984

Is is a little bit away from "the FIA warning the drivers of the SC and then pushing a button and slowing everyone down" The drivers still have control in the scenario proposed in that autosport story.

However, I still view it as a knee jerk reaction. It would reward "Johnny on the spot" drivers and will still impact on the results - imagine a race where Kimi is leading by some 15 secs ahead of heikki, Hamilton, Massa (because of a 1 stop strategy managed to bunch everyone up.) Kubica, Heidfeld, Rosberg, Webber... The SC comes out just as Kimi approached pit lane and is able to dip in right away, Hamilton then is stuck cued up behind HK and is then passed by Massa, RK, Rosberg and Webber, and a sure podium is gone...

I am opposed to any regulation that takes control away from drivers that are paid millions to drive. I also think that because the majority (Indycar, Nascar, ALMS etc etc) all close their pits at the start of a caution (safety car) period, there is more to it then just to prevent cars racing to the pits.

[ArrowsFA1]

The pitlane incident during the Canadian GP should increase the pressure for changes to the safety car rules IMHO.

If the pitlane is open then it should be open, not open at the entry but closed at the exit :crazy:

[BDunnell]

The pitlane incident during the Canadian GP should increase the pressure for changes to the safety car rules IMHO.

If the pitlane is open then it should be open, not open at the entry but closed at the exit :crazy:

I agree, especially if the train of cars has already gone completely past.

[Bobby_Hamlin]

It's an absolutely ridiculous situation. If they want to turn F1 into NASCAR or Indycar or whatever by putting a car out to slow the field to bunch them up and create artificial racing then so be it - but at least NASCAR and Indycar have the rules and pitlane infrastructure to accommodate it. Cars queuing side by side at the pitlane exit and potentially backing up half way down the pitlane is crazy.

They need to fix this now because sooner or later someone is going to get seriously hurt.

[SGWilko]

It's an absolutely ridiculous situation. If they want to turn F1 into NASCAR or Indycar or whatever by putting a car out to slow the field to bunch them up and create artificial racing then so be it - but at least NASCAR and Indycar have the rules and pitlane infrastructure to accommodate it. Cars queuing side by side at the pitlane exit and potentially backing up half way down the pitlane is crazy.

They need to fix this now because sooner or later someone is going to get seriously hurt.

If the cars are queueing up at the exit, and jo fastdriver is in his pit, past which the queue is formed, what do they do then when he wants to pull out?

It is a bit silly really.

[ArrowsFA1]

It's ironic that these kind of issues were raised a year ago. Felipe Massa, who was penalised for ignoring the red light along with Fisichella, said then: ""What sense does it make? Was I supposed to stay stopped while the race went on?"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/59664

[BDunnell]

It's ironic that these kind of issues were raised a year ago. Felipe Massa, who was penalised for ignoring the red light along with Fisichella, said then: ""What sense does it make? Was I supposed to stay stopped while the race went on?"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/59664

And, with hindsight, he was absolutely right.

I think it was in a British Touring Car race some years ago in which a similar thing happened — the pit exit was closed for some reason (possibly because the queue of cars was going past behind the SC), but the car at the front of those wanting to exit the pits stalled and blocked the exit for those behind. I don't especially want to see that happening in an F1 race!

[aryan]

The pitlane exit has nothing to do with this incident.

The train was moving at that point and that's why the red light was on.

Under any other SC rule, the same would have been the case.

The SC rules are fine as they are.

[BDunnell]

The pitlane exit has nothing to do with this incident.

The train was moving at that point and that's why the red light was on.

Under any other SC rule, the same would have been the case.

The SC rules are fine as they are.

How far along the pit straight was the train? Again, I can't remember.

[Bleu]

How far along the pit straight was the train? Again, I can't remember.

At the time Hamilton hit Räikkönen, driver on the hairpin was Trulli. There was three drivers behind him: Glock, Fisichella and Vettel.

[Bobby_Hamlin]

The pitlane exit has nothing to do with this incident.

The train was moving at that point and that's why the red light was on.

Under any other SC rule, the same would have been the case.

The SC rules are fine as they are.

What we're actually saying is that the pitlane infrastructure in F1 isn't conducive to pitting so many cars at close quarters and then having them stop and queue at a red light whilst potentially battling for position with another car.

With rules (from 2007 season on) now meaning the pits are closed and the cars pack up behind the SC before the pits open it exacerbates the situation - in previous years cars would immediately pit (if necessary) and yes, we did occasionally see cars queuing at their teams pit box but given the field spread prior to the SC being deployed there wasn't the volume there is now. There wasn't a train to wait for either because it hadn't been established yet.

Clearly the pitlane exit played a part in the particular incident in Canada regardless of the reason (red light), which we are all aware of and especially of why it was on (the train). It is not true to say, in my opinion, that it would happen under any SC rules and I would like to see a rethink.

[jens]

I may understand, why there are those, who like the current SC rules. As the results of the majority of the races are quite similar, then folks are happy to see underdogs getting a decent result at times, even if the achievement itself was a fluke and hardly deserved.

There is no way Wurz in 2007 and DC in 2008 Canadian Grand Prixs would have ended on podium with the previous SC rule. Actually they would have been in trouble to make it into the points!

Safety car appearance itself is unfair to the leaders, because they lose all their time advantage they have gained. Why must it be even more unfair by besides losing time advantage they also lose track position?