Luca di Montezemolo is right: F1′s safety car rules are humiliating for the sport
Luca di Montezemolo (left, with Felipe Massa) is unhappy with the Safety Car rules
Ferrari’s Luca di Montezemolo was not impressed by the role the safety car had to play in Singapore:
When we race on tracks where staging a circus or something else would be better, anything can happen, because the spectacle is supplied by the Safety Car. This is humiliating for F1.
Montezemolo may be sore about Ferrari’s first point-less Grand Prix in 47 races, but I share his frustration with how the current safety car rules can spoil drivers’ races.
Clive at F1 Insight said of Montezemolo’s reaction:
Apparently, it is ‘humiliating’ for the sport to rely on Safety Car periods to spice up races. Strange that Luca should never have mentioned this before, considering that the Safety Car has been around for years and its appearance always has an effect on race results.
It’s a fair point and although Montezemolo targeted some of his criticism at the Singapore circuit I don’t think he has more reason to be upset with how the safety car affected the race than some other team bosses. The error that ruined Felipe Massa’s race could have happened at a normal pit stop – indeed, it did for Kimi Raikkonen at Valencia and Ferrari’s failure to learn from that was the real cause of their woes.
If anyone should be annoyed at how the safety car changed his race it is Robert Kubica. He, like Nico Rosberg, was forced to pit under the safety car when the pit lane was ‘closed’, and was given a penalty. But because he pitted a lap later than Rosberg he became stuck behind Giancarlo Fisichella and wasn’t able to capitalise on the timing as Rosberg did.
Pit closure rules ruin races
Kubica is not the first driver to have his race ruined by a safety car appearance that coincided with a pit stop, thereby ruining his race. And it had a potentially significant bearing on the world championship: his 14-point deficit to Lewis Hamilton is now 20.
Since the pit lane closure rules were introduced in 2007 we’ve seen several occasions where drivers’ races have been ruined by the appearance of the safety car such as:
- Fernando Alonso and Nico Rosberg, Montreal, 2007 (the points lost here potentially cost Alonso the title)
- Heikki Kovalainen, Melbourne, 2008
- Nick Heidfeld, Catalunya, 2008
The fact it is not in use yet, when the FIA originally aimed for a solution before the Monaco Grand Prix, suggests it is not working well.
The FIA should have seen it coming
Max Mosley may think some F1 fans are “stupid” but his regime’s failure to anticipate the obvious faults with the ‘pit lane closed’ rule are hardly a sign of good governance.
Now F1 is faced with either scrapping the ‘pit lane closure’ rule – which I doubt will happen as it was brought in on safety grounds – or find some new solution.
Since the French Grand Prix the drivers have been testing a system where, when the safety car is deployed, they have to go into a special ‘slow-down mode’ and lap the circuit at a prescribed pace. But some drivers have expressed concerns about this complicated new system. Mark Webber said:
I know I always get in trouble when I say this, but Charlie [Whiting] keeps saying we can improve it, but I don’t think there is anything we can do to make it more complicated than it is now.
What if…
The fact such an ill-conceived rule was created in the first place is damning criticism of the FIA’s governance of Formula 1. As is the inconclusive attempt to find a solution which has dragged on for over a year with no success.
The threat of the safety car deciding the title was a concern last year and it’s the same again this year.
Imagine a scenario where one of the championship challengers has their race ruined by the safety car at Interlagos and misses out on the title because of it. The sport’s credibility would be dealt another hammer blow by the people in charge of running it.
Comments have been split across multiple pages. If you are having trouble viewing the pages click here to see all comments.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 1st October 2008, 14:12
Simon (#13) is bang on the money about why the ‘just leave extra fuel in the car’ idea doesn’t make sense. Ironically McLaren did try it at Monaco last year and ended up having a row over team orders as a result. By Canada they must have gien up on the idea – and Alonso ended up getting caught out by it. D’oh!
Chalky said on 1st October 2008, 15:01
Simple solution: Ban refuelling.
1) That would mean no more fuel hoses getting pulled out down the pitlane. No more pit lane refuelling fires.
2) Stickier, less durable tyres could be used to improve mechanical grip. Teams would race each other to change tyres when they get worn out.
3) KERS – When it comes in could help teams run less fuel and save weight, rather than have some silly boost function.
4) No more safety car refuelling problems.
5) Banning refuelling would make Q3 a low fuel qualifying session! :D
and yes Keith has already done a “reasons to ban refuelling” already, but I strongly agree with banning it. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/03/25/two-good-reasons-to-ban-refuelling/
Yes, I do agree that some teams have used refuelling to their benefit and the Singapore GP was great for Renault. But if you keep the two type of tyres and ban refuelling you still have to pit sometime.
ukk said on 1st October 2008, 15:01
@22: good idea for the race restart, but will be time-consuming and will put extra load on the engines. There are 2 main reasons to have a SC: 1) keep the cars runing so that their engines do not overheat or need to be restarted and 2) there is a 2hr time limit for a race, and a race restart is at least 10 min extra.
So we need a safety car, but I really do not get it why the pitlane should be closed! See Indy – works OK there with even more unsafe pitlane.
F1Fan said on 1st October 2008, 15:18
Off-topic comment (quote) below.
There is no denying Kimi remains the fastest driver. Only he and Michael have done this (in fact Kimi has done it twice, and with 3 races remaining, he will surely break the FL record).
” Despite crashing out and scoring no points, world champion Kimi Raikkonen equalled a record at Sunday’s Singapore grand prix. The Finn set the fastest lap of the sport’s first night race; his tenth such achievement in the 15 grands prix so far in 2008.
It equals Michael Schumacher’s standing record of ten fastest laps in the 2004 season, an achievement 28-year-old Raikkonen also equalled as a McLaren driver in 2005.”
Dorian said on 1st October 2008, 15:24
I agree with Chalky that refuelling should be banned for the reasons that he stated #32 and for all the reasons that Keith has stated long before
DG said on 1st October 2008, 15:25
Do the FIA give a reason why the Pit Lane is closed as the SC goes out? If its just to protect the SC on its ‘out lap’ then its a bit bizarre, as we actaully saw the SC stop at the first corner, where he has to hope the leading car will see him I suppose.
And if the ruling is just to stop cars refueling early and gaining an advantage, surely the Red Bulls did that anyway in Singapore – aren’t they quick learners! No doubt they will be penalised next time…..
It would be safer to allow the Pit Lane to stay open, or isn’t a car running out of fuel a ‘Safety’ issue any more? Even though it could stop anywhere on the track!
As for Luca’s comments, I think it is a big dose of sour grapes, since he cannot publically blame his team for being prats!
AS said on 1st October 2008, 15:29
I agree about banning the refuelling. I liked F1 when drivers had to manage a heavy car at the start of the race with all the consequences on the brakes and tyres. And that will also oblige drivers to overtake on the track instead of waiting for the pit-stop. However the car areodynamic has also a part in the lack of overtaking; hopefully next year cars will help solve the overtaking issue at least in part (but I am not so sure!). Anyway, Montezemolo talks a lot about tracks, pit-stops, safety cars and so on but he is not doing anything in concrete. I am Italian and I like to see Ferrari winning races but in my view Montezemolo is really not the best person to listen to in the F1 paddock!
El Gordo said on 1st October 2008, 15:49
@DG The pit-lane is closed initially to stop cars racing round the track to get back to the pits for a quick pit stop when there should be a full circuit yellow flag.
ukk said on 1st October 2008, 15:59
El Gordo, so they only shifted this rush a bit ahead in time – everybody rushes to the pitlane when it is opened, no matter when. Don’t really see the real safety advantage here.
qazuhb said on 1st October 2008, 16:00
Nice Simon, and you end with ten cars stopped behind the line awaiting for the number in the HUD giving them clearance?
wen said on 1st October 2008, 16:06
I just wonder if the safety car problem can be solved if race control had a “slow down button’ which limits their top speed that race control can push to slow all the cars down at the exact same moment when the safety car is deployed, and not one controlled by the driver where if pushed at different times, could lead to accidents as cars slow down at different times and cars behind may not have slowed down yet, leading to them hitting drivers from behind. This is so the pit lane can remain open as the cars would not be speeding back anymore.
El Gordo said on 1st October 2008, 16:10
@ukk – the rush to get to the pits was on the track, not in the pit lane. It should be safe in the pit lane. I think it was put in to stop things like THIS happening:
Alex Cooper said on 1st October 2008, 16:17
@ukk (post 33)
Good point, ukk. And as Ferrari proved in Singapore and Valencia, the pit lane in F1 is dangerous whether it’s open or not.
Having a pitlane that is closed because of the safety car obviously doesn’t work if teams have no option but to refuel their car.
Refuelling = dangerous. Therefore why bother closing it?
DG said on 1st October 2008, 16:27
El Gordo – I knew it was something bizarre like that – and was there any proof that the cars that were penalised had actually done that? Surely they are more likely to be at the point of ‘fuel saving’ and cruising slowly before pitting?
I agree with those who would like to see the cars do a whole race on on tank of fuel, and surely with the new KERS technology that is more likely to happen, the first team to do it will have a huge advantage? And be penalised for it……
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 1st October 2008, 16:52
OK here’s a thought – why not allow drivers to pit under the safety car, but require them to shuffle back into their original order before the end of the safety car period. Therefore there’s no incentive to rush back to the pits.
It’s not a great solution as some drivers are still disadvantaged, but it could work for the last three races of this year, and then they could just ban refuelling for next year when the designers have enough time to fit bigger fuel tanks in…