Why the giant runoff areas instead of gravel traps?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpp7OCngXQM

The grass area was very narrow and then he was onto low grip concrete - Not high grip tarmac.

At the speed he went off and the area of run-off available, gravel would have made no real difference to the impact speed with the wall (And again, remember that the reason he died was due to a piece of suspension breaking off and piercing his helmet, it wasn't due to the force of impact on the wall. Had he hit the wall at a slightly different angle but at the same speed, then the suspension part may well have missed him completely and he would have lived to tell the tale! - Basically, he was just very unlucky that day!)

Gravel Vs tarmac: There are pro's and cons to both, but overall it has been shown that high grip tarmac is the better option.

As I have previously posted, had Schuey go off onto a high-grip tarmac at Silverstone rather than tobogganing across gravel with no control available, then chances are he would never have broken his leg!

 

Agreed, but Roland Ratzenberger would very likely be alive today if there had been a gravel trap at the end of that straight. His car definitely would have not bounced over because he had somebody elses wing under his ... poor guy.

So what concerns me is they seem to bounce from one idea to another and it is not that simple. I personally think the reason for asphalt is not safety but to potentially maximise the TV show, i.e no star driver is out, and if I am right that is not cool at all.
Pete

 

Actually I've just had a very good idea to make gravel traps most likely work in all cases AND reduce downforce.

All cars are to have a scoop type shape a certain size under the middle of the cars floor. This device will scoop into the gravel AND completely stuff underfloor aero. A win win.

As for roll overs, I believe that the roll bars are high enough and strong enough that the drivers are safe ... as for vintage cars, well rolling over on harder surfaces would be worse, so slow down and stay on the track!
Pete

 

On this one, I have a sneaking suspicion that what you are suggesting may well be right!

But you could look at it another way: If you know that any overtaking manoeuvre could result in you being out of a race due to being stuck in the kitty litter then you're far less likely to risk it.

If you know though, that should you take a chance, the penalty for failure will be a bit of lost time rather than being out of the race completely then you're more likely to give it a go! - That's just human nature!

So tarmac run-offs can help create far better racing than gravel traps can!

Just a thought!

 

I like the tarmac runoff far better than the gravel trap. I hate driving through the debris that someone has dragged back onto the racing surface from the trap. Those projectiles can do a lot of damage to cars not involved in any incident.

That said, it is wrong to use the runoff as Kimi did in GB, keeping your foot in it and trying to merge back in line with no penalty. The simple answer is that any car that has been four off due to loss of control (not in avoidance) has to drive through the pits immediately for visual inspection by the stewards. This creates a significant penalty for going off, keeps the car in the race, eliminates the yellow that would be necessary to dig the car out of the kitty litter and keeps that track clean.

 

You too may have a future in the F1 beaurocracy.

 

Considering incident response: gravel sucks. I dreaded the acres of it around Indy, and if a car did stop in it we'd have to cross much more of it than the car did - but that's the result of it being used for landscaping more than safety. You spend too much transit time trying not to stumble instead of thinking about what the incident requires.

Gravel traps that slope upward from the track surface (if the track is banked the trap must be banked more) are pretty effective at slowing an out of control car but very few are laid out that way.

 

Makes good sense! Thanks
Pete

 

Let's be fair about it: there is ABSOLUTELY no need for runoff areas or gravel traps.

Indianapolis don't have them, ovals don't have them, and they register speed in the 250mph. I have never heard they were even talked about in oval racing.
Monaco don't have gravel traps and just a few escape routes, still no one would think about imposing them there.

Racing happens on the track, not outside it. These runoff areas have ruined motor racing by allowing unsporting overtaking because there is no risk; they don't punish the drivers who keep driving outside the limits of the track.
In the old days, if you put 2 wheels on the grass, it was probably the last time!
Nowadays, it's common practice to miss bends, cut across corners, and re-join the circuit in all impunity.

Runoff areas have lowered the standards by allowing sloppy driving.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Ee9QtWFYg]scheivlak comp - YouTube[/ame]


Scheivlak at Zandvoort. Much prefer it over the Tarzan myself (the corner everyone raves about). Scheivlak is high speed, downhill right hander. Get it wrong and you're in the upward sloping gravel trap!

 

Yeah! - Lets get back to drivers dying at race tracks due to hitting dangerous barriers /catch fences/ obstacles at the side of the track! - That's real racing!

Is this what you'd prefer to see in racing? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsataYtOJfs

That's the benefit of no run-off areas on your ovals! - A driver (Dan Wheldon R.I.P), being killed because he had nowhere to go!

And if you have no run off areas at all , then who's going to risk an overtake that might end up getting the driver killed? - You'll have less overtaking than ever before! - And what was one of the biggest complaints about F1?: Processional races with a lack of overtaking!



Runoff areas may have lowered the standards by allowing sloppy driving, but they've also saved a s:censored:t load of needless deaths at circuits around the World!

If it comes down to seeing either sloppy driving with mistakes not being "punished", or driver deaths, I know which one I'd rather see - All of the drivers going home in one piece at the end of every race!

 

Risk and danger are inherent parts of motor racing and always will be.

I am all for the prevention of serious injuries by imposing stringent safety rules in the building of race cars, but the tracks themselves shouldn't become too "sanitized" to the extent that any stupid manoeuver will be unpunished.

Yes, if there are no runoff areas, drivers will think twice before attempting a pass, or maybe before running their opponents off the track as it is seen so regularly now.

I remember the comment of an ex World champion (in the 60s) about a recent world champion's driving (early 2000): "The guy's driving isn't very precise, is it? I saw him so many times driving outside the track; in my days, he wouldn't have got away with that".

I won't quote the 2 drivers in question, both world champions.

No runoffs on ovals, no runoffs in sprint cars racing, no runoffs in speedway; they just drive/ride accordingly.

 

Off tracking should have a cost but it shouldn't be injury. Or worse.

 

I'd much rather see a driver continue on than get beached. That's probably the most boring part of a race and now they'd probably be issuing a safety car every time a car got beached because they're a lot more difficult to just push out of the way. Good riddance.

 

I seriously suggest spikes should be part of the corner kerbing. Therefore if a driver tries to cheat, or cannot control is car accurately/properly, he will get punished with a flat tyre and have to limp back to the pits.

I still though do not like runoff areas and prefer sand traps: puts safety first and heck if a driver has gone that far off they deserve to stay there. This is supposed to be the peak of motorsport not some local indoor gokart track.
Pete

 

Elimination from the race, then ?

 

It does, if you go off you lose time. Having somebody get beached or limp back to the pits adds nothing to the show or the excitement.

 

Depends on the track/corner really.

Some tracks when you go off you can gain a serious amount of time, hence the stewards penalize for it.

--

Spikes etc I can't see it happen.

I'll repeat what I've said:

White line, curb, 2m of real grass and then all the run off you want. Put those new barriers behind it, the safe ones (whatever they're called).

If you go so far off line that your outer wheel will go on the grass, you have no option but to back off or you'll spin. There's the penalty.

-

A wall instead of run offs or gravel is just about the dumbest thing I've read today. We want overtaking, we all know what happens when we add walls. Singapore GP or Monaco ringing any bells??

 

Yes. Or at the very least a meaningful loss of time.

In and of itself no.
But if offs have costs the drivers will respect the track more and that will mean better, more disciplined racing.

 

Motor racing must be the only sport where it is tolerated to go beyond the lines.

It is called a fault in tennis. It's not allowed in soccer.

This should be addressed.

 

We can't have it both ways. Whoever made the ''mistake'' of going over the track limits first for instance in Silverstone, Vettel or Alonso, if they had been given a drive through then we wouldn't have had that epic battle for whatever position it was.

Particularly in qualifying it's addressed properly for now. Until we get 2m of grass there's not much we can do. We can't very well punish a driver for going off line constantly, we'd have so many people having drive throughs it takes away from the racing.

Instant punishment won't work during the actual race, unless it's an obvious advantage taken with intent multiple times. We have to wait until they fix the address with a real immediate punishment that doesn't involve time added or a drive through. That answer, IMO is 2m of grass or another slippery surface.

 

Start penalizing offs and there will be far fewer of them.

 

You have to dish out credible penalties to make the rule credible and eradicate the sloppy driving.

 

An unenforced law is no law.

 

50% electronic reduction in engine output when crossing all four wheels over the white line, until the car has returned with at least two wheels back within the track boundary?

Or does that sound like another artificial FIA gimmick again?

All the best,
Andrew.