2014 Formula One Japanese Grand Prix

[Diogo Sa]

Both of the options are quite reasonable. So FIA need to reunite with GPDA and define somethin'. However I think there's no reason to go crazy right now... The way I see the accident i think Bianchi wouldn't hit the barriers even if the truck wasn't there... He's right aligned with the entrance the truck was using.

 

[Philip Heck]

Some very good points by this doctor, but I still favor the idea of speed limiter instead of SC.

I'm all for closed cockpits (if it can be done safely), but I'm against the speed limiter idea... That would be too much control from the outside.
Instead I would go for "send out the SC every time there's an accident", of course then you'd have to revise the "2-hour rule" and the times at which the races start. Also it shouldn't be too hard to outfit the tractors with some kind of foam coating or use more cranes like they do at monaco (able to retrive the car from behind the barriers).

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

A blog by former F1 Doctor, I find his explanation quite fair and satisfactory..

http://formerf1doc.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/2271/

Fully agree on this article. The speed which Jules uses thru that corner does not look like double yellows. The temptation to not respect flags is huge, one driver drop 2 secs, the next drops 0.2s and the one "cheating" gets two second gain. One more reason to implement hard speed limiter instead on making drivers interpret rules whilst on track and no doubt being pressured by the team to keep delta as close as possible to maximum allowed. Make it a hard limiter. They made pit speed limiters work decades ago.

SC is too slow, takes 1-2 laps to get it on the track, 3 laps at least before it can leave and 1-2 laps for exiting. If SC could be deployed for 3 laps, fine but when every little scrape would mean 7 laps of SC.. No, does not work plus even when there is a hard accident, it means only one or two sectors (not the "1/2/3" sectors but the flag zones) is out of race use. Safety car in Spa in T1 accident means that 50m of track is unsafe, + 200m before and after, while the rest 6.7km is totally safe.

Le Mans already have it working.. http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9508682/could-le-mans-style-slow-zones-work-in-f1

 

[Philip Heck]

Not sure what to think of this. It's not that much different from double yellows and I don't see how this system could've prevented the accident as he was cleary going to fast anyways (he wasn't the only one). The same kind of system with an automated limiter that will limit the car's speed in just the sector in question I would be all for it. I think that would be a good compromise between a complete speed limiter that controls all cars on the whole track (to replace the SC) and simple/double yellows.

 

[Kjell Eilertsen]

"“The problem I see is in Jules’ incident is it had very little to do with speed, he aquaplaned just as Sutil did,” he added."
Uhm what? So if you aquaplane at 200 km/h you will automatically aquaplane on the same spot doing 80 km/h? Also, hitting a truck with your head doing 80 km/h is going to do the same damage as if you where doing 200? What a load of bolony!
I agree on the problem of drivers trying to minimize the time loss during that sector which can lead to issues of it self, but one thing remains evident to me, they way it was handled at Suzuka is not the way it should have been and should not for the future.

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

They are talking about putting sideskirts around the recovery vehicles.. That is only one part of it, i'm all for it but controlling the situation better is the first part, imho. Skirting the JCBs is like bandage, a quick fix that takes care of the symptoms but not the actual cause: discipline during yellow flag. This is like taking care of toddler by padding every single corner they bump their heads and expecting them to learn from that.. They will only learn to run faster, there are studies about this: you put a helmet on a cyclist, cars will drive closer to them, both sides take more risks and while the severity of accidents drops, the total will rise. I'm not against helmets but you can't simply pad every single surface on a F1 circuit and expect drivers to behave like there is no padding.. Skirting JCBs is just the wrong message; double yellows = don't worry, minor inconvenience.

Note, this is also one the last Old School tracks with gravel runoffs. The same thing can't happen in Bahrain.. But Dunlop curve is those special places, not even tarmac runoffs help if you go off track flat out during rain. We pretty much can conclude that every driver took Dunlop during double yellows too fast and race control could not or would not start handing penalties at that point. Meaning, the speed Jules went off track was legal, he did what he was asked to do. So saying "he took it too fast" has to be remembered that it means "he had to drive too fast".

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

Updates: After FIA press conference, all i can say that almost everything we have concluded so far are right: there were missing yellow flags before the accident location. The green flag is like we thought, to show that there are no more troubles ahead and you can only resume normal racing speed after that flag. Not "as soon as anyone sees it". No safety car as double yellows should've worked, the car is far enough from the track. So the marshalls are in inspection and i think this is correct; they are volunteers, make mistakes but the system as a whole needs inspection.

Interestingly, either they are very clever boffins in FIA (they are) or they have read this thread (they haven't) they are testing from tomorrow onwards a speed limiter system, driver controlled. They are trying to find the 2nd limiter speed and if i got it right, starting from pit limiter speed. They need to go at least double or triple, 150kph is pretty close if you ask me, probably they will take it a bit down and we see 120kph-140kph limiter implemented.. At least i hope so, not just to say "i told you so" but to save lives.