[forzaferrari]

fair enough Jody I will leave it at that....I must be incorrect....I gave my original opinion/view "My first answer would be `Why not?` sometimes it works for you, sometimes against...remember Lewis ranting last year " Why did they not use VSC to cover it".(cant remember race/incident)....today it was Sebs turn to get lucky....personally while it adds a bit of spice regardless to whom I would be in favour of keeping as is...swings and roundabouts!"

[Jody Barton]

Forza you can have an opinion or view. However, rules and regulations aren't subjective things, they're a form of coded morality if you will that governs and regulates functioning society or sport. They therefore exist to achieve something, so in this case the questions I would ask myself are these:

1) Was there a problem or a need for the regulation?

If no, it's a bad regulation, get rid of it. If the answer is yes I'd move to the next question:

2) Does the regulation achieve it's stipulated aim and solve the problem or need for the regulation?

That's a simply yes or no.

In the case of the VSC it was brought in because there needed to be an option between race ruining VC's and sometimes too dangerous waved double yellows. The VSC pegs drivers to a lap delta that should mean the drivers can circulate safely and easily without taking life out of their tyres / not ruining their race, and also allow marshals to operate safely at the track side. The aim was to neutralise a race entirely, and not in effect reset it like a VC does. Was that a need in F1? I think after the death of Bianchi more than anything the answer was an emphatic yes. Although to be honest it should have been a yes long before Bianchi, after all there had been a few incidents in other formula, but also F1 when waved double yellows wasn't enough to ensure marshal safety because drivers are drivers. So for me, question 1 says yes, there is a need for VSC's.

The next question then becomes does the virtual safety car deliver on both of it's objectives. Firstly on the safety of marshals? I'd actually be far happier clearing track debris under a VSC than waved double yellows if I'm entirely honest. I have had pant browning moments operating under waved double yellows, one of which quite frankly I nearly clocked the driver over because he did not slow down and was not prepared to stop. So yeah, the VSC I think achieves it's first goal. Next, does it neutralise races? Answer no. It allows drivers to essentially gain a 50% quicker pit stop, and at some tracks that'll be even bigger. So on that score it currently fails.

The solution? Re-enact or actually just use the already existing regulations over pitlane entry which existed for the previous VC rules. Previously teams were not allowed to pit under the VC, as the pitlane was closed. Firstly that was a dumb rule, because you never really gained pitting under the VC, or very rarely. Secondly it actively penalised those drivers running longer who hadn't pitted. But by the by, while this rule was in place if a car was damaged or had a puncture it had to go back to the pits to repair said damage and this took precedent over the pitlane closure. In short you had to pit if there was damage. The same could be applied to VSC's. Close the pitlane, neutralise the race properly. If there is damage or a puncture that requires work then the car must pit and that takes precedent. There is no problem here. It ensures the VSC does its job.

Plus if the pitlane has to close for safety or damage / crash reasons the race needs to be red flagged.

The only argument therefore for keeping the VSC as it is, is because as you said it spices things up, but that then means it isn't solving the problem / need it was supposed to, and is thus a bad rule. I just don't see how it can be argued that under it's current guise the VSC achieves its second objective. It might achieve some supurfluous objective because the car / technical regulations in F1 are utter gash and have led to processional races, but VSC's shouldn't be used to solve that.

Oh and on Hamilton complaining about them not using a VSC, I think he did that if I'm correct in both Baku, Spa and Singapore, maybe even Japan now I think about it. All times he lost massive leads he'd built up. In Baku the first SC I agree with, could and should have been done under VSC. I mean, the blockage was cleared in under a lap. The second safety car? That was needed. Spa the two SC's were absolutely needed, because even at VSC speed I don't think I'd want to be working in the firing line at the top of Eau Rougue / Radillon, or on the straight before Eau Rouge / Radillon. No thank you. In Singapore one should have been VSC, the other, Ericsson, couldn't be. They needed a window to safely bring the lifting crane onto the track. The thing is, it doesn't matter who gets lucky or not, that's not the point. Last year I made the same point about the Spanish GP. The VSC utterly scuppered Vettel's race and allowed Hamilton to get right on him. All those other incidents did the opposite. Buit again, that isn't the point. Does the rule do what it sets out to do? Nope.

[forzaferrari]

Look Jody, I replied your post on here :

"So question the first...

Should you be able to pit under a Virtual Safety Car?

I don't know, but it has spiced this race up because Hamilton was cruising." ....I actually agreed with you which is the funny part, however...

I dont want to go over and over all this again, It is/ was my opinion, I have not stated anywhere the rules and regs are subjective, opinions are exactly that, opinions. You brought up the SC thing....and again I gave my opinion, yet again you found issue with this.

I dont know all the rulings in F1 nor do I want too, I am here to express opinions and hopefully have a laugh as you are all good guys and this site is somewhere to do these things.

edit: If I have said something wrong or nonfactual in my posts on here today please feel free to point out...but appreciate being allowed my opinions, cheers

[Jody Barton]

As I said Forza you can have an opinion that it spiced the race up, or even be happy it gave your guy the win in this case, I have no issue with that, but I do personally think anyone who thinks the VSC is working in it's current guise, given it is a rule, and therefore designed to achieve specific aims, which it clearly isn't achieving is beyond debate. It has ruined far too many races. For me there are two solutions to this, change the VSC rules, which I'd favour truth be told, or scrap them altogether.

I personally think that the SC coming out today straight away would have been the right call, and until a call can be made waved double yellows. However, that would have utterly ruined Sebs race he'd have ended up 6th or 7th. However, lets say for a moment that it could've been dealt with under the VSC, and pushed away I don't think it is right Seb goes from being nearly 5 seconds behind Kimi, to being 10 in front of him because of the VSC, and leap frogging Hamilton too boot. If the aim was to create these sorts of incident to spice things up, why not have random VSC's for fun?

[Monster Hesh]

It's funny Haas have thrown away potential biggest points haul of the season, two years in a row.

[forzaferrari]

As I said Forza you can have an opinion that it spiced the race up, or even be happy it gave your guy the win in this case, I have no issue with that, but I do personally think anyone who thinks the VSC is working in it's current guise, given it is a rule, and therefore designed to achieve specific aims, which it clearly isn't achieving is beyond debate. It has ruined far too many races. For me there are two solutions to this, change the VSC rules, which I'd favour truth be told, or scrap them altogether.

I personally think that the SC coming out today straight away would have been the right call, and until a call can be made waved double yellows. However, that would have utterly ruined Sebs race he'd have ended up 6th or 7th. However, lets say for a moment that it could've been dealt with under the VSC, and pushed away I don't think it is right Seb goes from being nearly 5 seconds behind Kimi, to being 10 in front of him because of the VSC, and leap frogging Hamilton too boot. If the aim was to create these sorts of incident to spice things up, why not have random VSC's for fun?

 "As I said Forza you can have an opinion that it spiced the race up, or even be happy it gave your guy the win in this case"....I am far from happy with this result as it was not won on track or anywhere near in my opinion, I have said many times First and foremost I am a F1 fan, who just happens to support Ferrari.


I actually agree with you on the vsc and sc thing, I just felt it a little SKYish to ask for opinions and then throw the whole rule book thing at whoever responds, correct me if I am wrong but  I never said I favoured using the vsc to spice up the racing, I only said (like yourself) that it had added a little spice to what could have turned out processional at the front, and I would leave the rule as is for now, as for the sc remark again I was replying to your comment and pointed out it can lead to some being disadvantaged (also something you later said yourself) As for "  If the aim was to create these sorts of incident to spice things up, why not have random VSC's for fun?" this is just a bit too silly to reply to.

[morini]

I think we've done the VSC thing now. Bit of a shit way to decide a race, but what's done is done. Lets move on

[forzaferrari]

I think we've done the VSC thing now. Bit of a shit way to decide a race, but what's done is done. Lets move on

No problem boss man 

[Monster Hesh]

Two tier Formula One in all its glory. After the safety car its evident McLaren & midfield have a real pace deficit, 1s a lap, is it. That wont be made up this season via chassis development.

A seriously tough start of the season for the back markers Sauber and TR. If anything maybe we could say they are close enough to midfield to say it is just two tier and not three. But too many issues to really state. If they survive Bahrain which is really tough on car ware, it will be vital data for both teams and Honda. As Honda's Melbourne wasn't great, coupled with Hartley damaged car etc, probably skewed what they can take away from him finishing the race.

Bit of a wake up call for Honda and TR, intriguing to see if the "regular" Honda engine season plays out. Or whether what we saw in testing comes to the race track.

[Monster Hesh]

I used to think pitstops weren't such a big deal, don't know why, but recent years I've paid more attention to how much time can be lost there. 

Was getting worried for McLaren and pitstop phases. Every pitstop that was caught on camera during the free practices all went as about aswell at the testing ones. But when the it was game time, they pulled through, kind of. RedBull back to kings of the pitstop this race, Williams have set the pace in recent years taking the mantle from RedBull during the end of V8's.


Awww  :'(

https://twitter.com/F1/status/977928919134294017




Come the final 5 or so laps, the top two turned it all down.

1 - RIC -  54 - 1:25.945 
2 - RAI -  57 - 1:26.373 
3 - HAM - 50 - 1:26.444
4 - VET -  53 - 1:26.469
5 - VER -  54 - 1:26.880
6 - VAN -  57 - 1:26.958
7 - ALO -  57 - 1:26.978 
8 - BOT -  54 - 1:27.019
9 - HUL -  57 - 1:27.081
10-OCO -  57 - 1:27.600

So fastest laps. Dangerously and bias, I'm going to take great heart from both McLarens featuring in the top10. All FL posted around the same time. RIC was really pushing to try and get RAI, as you can see in the line graph, he had something worthy gain.

I start to question the ALO RIC gap, I question the lap 57. Were they just cruising after the safety car to save engine elements ware? It's Melbourne, very tough to overtake, turn everything down and cruise? Come the end of the race, do a feeler lap, push a little more, tyre life and performance check. Renault and Force India follow suit?

But it is also more evidence they are a second a lap down on race pace to RedBull. Although not so much when comparing to Kimi lap 57 FL, but I think he just wasn't bothering.

As Jody stated in the 'Quali' thread, the next few tracks characteristics will give a much clearer picture pace form. Once we've been to hell and back trying to find the basic of timing info for F1.