Safer pit stops planned for Singapore

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Pastor Maldonado, Williams, Spa-Francorchamps, 2013In the round-up: The FIA plans further changes to pit stop procedure to come into effect at the Singapore Grand Prix to reduce the chances of someone being struck by a loose wheel.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

F1 pit stop rules tighten for Singapore (Autosport)

“A second device will now also retain the wheel in the event that it works loose having only just been engaged on the axle thread ?ǣ as would happen if the nut is cross-threaded during a pit stop and the car accidentally released.”

Ward eyes FIA presidency (The Telegraph)

“My campaign will be very much about the structure of the FIA, rather than about individuals. In my opinion it is not fit for purpose in the modern world.”

McLaren races ahead in business and Formula One on eve of 50th birthday (The Guardian)

Martin Whitmarsh: “Racing has been a fantastic British success story but for some reason it’s still treated as a fairly frivolous activity and has not been taken seriously. So in a sense, for McLaren now to be taken seriously it had to be doing something other than all the great things we were doing in motor sport.”

1983 Belgian Grand Prix report (MotorSport)

“During the time before the restart Renault and Ferrari mechanics were seen with churns of petrol though no one seems to have seen them actually topping-up their cars. However, there were various protests and subsequently Renault were fined $5000 for having refuelling churns on the starting grid, which is strictly against the rules.”

Why Greenpeace’s protests at Spa are inexcusable (Autocar)

“This will make it less fun to go to the Grand Prix and this is where I feel that Greenpeace’s actions were inexcusable.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

@Adrianmorse believes Jean Todt’s secretive style undermines confidence in his leadership:

What I don?t like about Todt is that we don’t hear much about him, which gives me a sneaky impression of him, like a politician that wants to do all his dealings behind closed doors.

For instance regarding the current issue over the tyre supplier for the next season. If he wants to bring in Michelin, he should have announced some kind of tender ages ago, instead of what he is doing now (which is waiting for Pirelli to despair and walk away?).
@Adrianmorse

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Mg and Galzo33!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

A wet day in Belgium 15 years ago today produced one of the most chaotic races ever seen. It began with a huge pile-up that stopped the race and forced a restart (see video below).

Once the race got going again championship leader Mika Hakkinen retired at the first corner. Michael Schumacher took the lead but slammed into the other McLaren of David Coulthard while lapping it.

Later on Giancarlo Fisichella had a similar collision with with Shinji Nakano. Out of the carnage, in which all the drivers were fortunate to escape injury, the Jordan duo emerged to score the team’s first win and one two.

Damon Hill led Ralf Schumacher home, his younger team mate unhappy at Jordan’s imposition of team orders, and Jean Alesi was third for Sauber.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7mbg_massive-f1-accident_auto

Image ?? Williams/LAT

Advert | Go Ad-free

57 comments on Safer pit stops planned for Singapore

  1. I love Lotus’ tweets

    • Scottie (@scottie) said on 30th August 2013, 1:00

      time for a Scandy flick at the hairpin, that’s what! :)

    • Bazza Spock (@bazza-spock) said on 30th August 2013, 2:00

      Yeah me too. Their car might not be right at the front but their media dept is the cleverest in the paddock.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 30th August 2013, 5:12

        It’s a shame that all it takes to be the most clever media department is to have a sense if humour.

      • kimrogue (@kimrogue) said on 30th August 2013, 7:32

        @bazza-spock I agree. They set the tone by handing out ice-creams to the media personnel in their first year with Kimi. They certainly have been very successful in using Kimi’s brand value to their benefit. And they have been very smart in being tongue-in-cheek with all their promotions, which suits their image of a plucky underdog team punching above their weight. Special mention: I thought “Where’s Roscoe” was pretty damn smart.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 30th August 2013, 7:13

      Lotus is “the cool” team in F1 and they’re serious about it. It’s a perfect combination of smart PR, Kimi and their black and gold livery, I hope they manage to keep that when Kimi walks away. Red Bull is actually “the coolest brand on earth” but Lotus has snatched their “coolest team in F1″ title and don’t want to let it go :)

  2. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 30th August 2013, 0:26

    Maybe they could do it like NASCAR (yeah, sacriledge!). They have 5 bolts in each wheel. That way the risk of the wheel completely getting lose is much smaller, as you gotta fail to tighten 5 bolts for it to go flying along the pit lane.

    It’s also very challenging for the teams.

    • djdaveyp85 (@djdaveyp87) said on 30th August 2013, 0:35

      They’d just make a gun that did all 5 at once like they do in other forms of motorsport.

    • JackySteeg (@jackysteeg) said on 30th August 2013, 1:43

      Now you come to mention NASCAR, I reckon F1 ought to consider adopting the rule whereby team members cannot leave the garage until the car is in the pitbox, and afterwards, the car cannot be released until all team members are back in the garage (okay, that’s slightly different to NASCAR’s rules, but you get my drift).

      This would result in:
      1. Considerably fewer people in the pitlane at any given time.
      2. Much less risk of an error in communication where a car is released before the wheel is secured. If there’s one guy who’s having trouble with the wheel gun, for instance, then the fact that he’s still sitting by the car rather than in the garage would make the delay a lot more obvious than it would be currently.

      I am very much in favour of increasing the times of pitstops, but I am against the notion of artificially doing so by imposing minimum pit times. There should always be a sense of urgency in a pitstop and so long as the mechanics are still working at 100%, then I don’t think it matters whether the stop takes 2 or 10 seconds.

      • 1eed said on 30th August 2013, 4:02

        I would like to see the drivers jump out & change their own tyres :)

      • Adam said on 30th August 2013, 6:38

        Now that’s just silly..

        • GeorgeTuk (@georgetuk) said on 30th August 2013, 11:20

          Not quite as silly as when Formula E comes along and they will be getting out of one car and into another to finish the race!

          Now THAT will be funny!

          • BJ (@beejis60) said on 30th August 2013, 15:18

            I thought races were gonna be like 10-20 minutes long, then they have a downtime and another car/battery pack like 2 hours later? It’s been a very long time since I looked at the proposed rules….

      • JCost (@jcost) said on 30th August 2013, 7:17

        What? No way @jackysteeg

        Just improve the gun and install a feedback system so the mechanics know it’s properly attached. I don’t think it’s technically demanding, a small group of junior engineers could come up with valid solution sooner than later.

        • @jcost agreed: I don’t understand why the FIA don’t just homologate the wheel guns so as to prevent accidental “ready” calls such as that which caused Mark Webber to be released before all wheels were attached. Obviously they can change the fixing to the wheel nut to allow for discrepencies in that area between teams but they should have the okay button so as to make it almost impossible to accidentally depress (maybe by indenting it so that you cannot simply slap the button?).

      • dennis (@dennis) said on 30th August 2013, 7:21

        This would work brilliantly, right up to the point when during a safety car period both drivers attempt to pit and one car parks behind the other, watching the crew run into the pits, release car 1 and then runs out again for car 2… Imagine the chaos.

  3. RichyB (@richyb) said on 30th August 2013, 0:46

    In elaboration of Keith’s video for On This Day in F1, here’s a link to the little musical Highlights video ITV put together of the race http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5kt5l_spa-francorchamps-1998-belgium-gp-h_auto

  4. aka_robyn said on 30th August 2013, 0:46

    That Saward column was ridiculous even by his standards.

    • FLIG (@flig) said on 30th August 2013, 3:28

      The kind of guy who deserves a Greenpeace protest inside his living room.

    • Spinmastermic (@spinmastermic) said on 30th August 2013, 4:52

      From reading his blog for a few years, Saward just doesn’t get the concept of protesting. He’s very ignorant outside of F1 matters.

      • Mouse_Nightshirt (@mouse_nightshirt) said on 30th August 2013, 10:40

        Stopped reading his site years ago. The occasional gem articles were completely buried under a sense of delusion about how great he is and a complete inability to be remotely polite to people who were fairly and respectfully exploring a different opinion.

        He’s very ignorant outside of F1 matters.

        That’s the bit he doesn’t get. He’s phenomenally knowledgeable about F1, but fails to grasp the wider world.

        • Thecollaroyboys (@thecollaroyboys) said on 30th August 2013, 22:46

          He hasn’t changed. He still rants about how stupid fans are for reading anyone else when he is the one true oracle of F1. He even insults his own readers, and subscribers (!). I asked why his magazine had no picture captions and he replied that “they’re all pictures of F1 cars” and that captioning is “too fiddly”. Yes Joe, you are a God and should not be questioned.

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 30th August 2013, 4:52

      It misses the point completely.

    • Thecollaroyboys (@thecollaroyboys) said on 30th August 2013, 6:20

      Thanks for the extra publicity Joe – signed Greenpeace.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th August 2013, 6:45

      I think this reasoning tells us all:

      The sad thing is that these antics will mean that Formula One will be forced to pay more attention to its security in the future. This will make it less fun to go to the Grand Prix and this is where I feel that Greenpeace’s actions were inexcusable. Sport is something that people travel to see as a relaxation. It is the fun in their lives and spoiling that fun, not just at Spa but also at future grand prix events, is something that no one deserves.

      In many places I doubt security can even become tighter, even if they wanted. And while its true that people like their relaxation, the action did not disrupt the real action on track, it just added a bit of protest to the side dishes.

      • I think the point hes making isnt that the protest disrupt Spa, per se, but that it will disrupt future GPs because now there will be tighter security messures in place to stop somthing like that happening again, and _thats_ where F1 is going to be spoiled.

    • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 30th August 2013, 19:04

      @aka_robyn @bascb @andae23 etc. Have to disagree with all of you on the issue and side with Joe Saward. This Greenpeace protest was a total and unmitigated failure. Btw, Dieter Rencken on Autosport has written a detailed article siting all the reasons on why that’s the case(won’t link as it’s a paid subscription article)

      Whether the cause is just, or not, is beside the point here(I think it’s a very important issue, and since I’ve studied the issue of polar ice sheets vulnerability extensively during recent academic studies I’m more qualified than most to comment on the issue. But it’s not what we’re discussing here. First, we’re discussing whether the protest was made in a fashion that can lead to success in alerting significant public interest to the issue. Second, it’s no good to attract this kind of interest, while alienating the public by your actions. In my country there was a huge strike by railway workers union in 2012, which paralyzed the entire country for a few days. All it served, was to instigate a crackdown by the ministry of transport on the union, which effectively made all but impotent, and the head of the union had narrowly avoided getting herself in jail. In a contemporary poll, over 80% of the citizens were in support of the Transport Ministry measures. So the railway union had succeded in the first objective but failed in the second. Greenpeace at Spa hadn’t even even succeeded in the first objective thanks most of all to FOM’s iron grip on the worldwide feed etc. (I very much recommend reading the Autosport article i’d mentioned above if you have the subscription, in order to expand your knowledge on the issue.

      And the only direction it can go to from here is downhill. If tighter security measures are indeed implemented because of this, they will get an expanded attention but the attention will be solely in negative light. Those who were unaware of the protest at all will be exposed to it while standing in some elongated queue, and therefore are unlikely to be supportive of the issue at hand

      As much as I admire Greenpeace’ firm stand to try to protect the environment and enhance sustainability, I find their methods of achieving these goals as sorely lacking and totally unsuccessful in convincing those not already convinced

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th August 2013, 19:24

        Well, I can see we probably won’t agree then @montreal95!

        I think the example you mention with the strikes is an interesting one, but does a lot to show what Greenpeace DID do right, rather then highlight the flaw in these kind of protests.
        It would fit if Greenpeace had somehow chained themselves to the barriers on track and had hampered the race (total collapse). That way they would have gotten more attention (not even FOM could have ignored it), but would have angered all the F1 fans. But that was not the case. This protest did nothing to disrupt the viewing fun for either the people present (ok, maybe apart from those who had more trouble seeing the big screens because a banner was in between) nor the TV viewers, so your comparison goes amiss.

        I won’t read the Autosport article, because I find that the overall quality of their articles has gone down significantly, so I won’t subscribe (although Rencken does a solid job mostly), but I really do not see how they were putting anyone in danger.
        Yes, its true that security will (if even possible) become a tad more tight, especially in Europe and maybe in Japan and Korea. But I seriously doubt it can even get worse in the US (they had incredible security last year), or places like the UAE, Bahrain, China, Singapore and Brazil.

        • montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 30th August 2013, 21:31

          @bascb I don’t see how your “It would fit if Greenpeace had somehow chained themselves to the barriers on track and had hampered the race (total collapse). That way they would have gotten more attention (not even FOM could have ignored it), but would have angered all the F1 fans. But that was not the case. This protest did nothing to disrupt the viewing fun for either the people present (ok, maybe apart from those who had more trouble seeing the big screens because a banner was in between) nor the TV viewers” disagrees with my assessment that “Greenpeace at Spa hadn’t even succeeded in the first objective”. That’s precisely how they failed: they hadn’t even got to the subject of positive VS negative publicity, they haven’t got significant publicity in the first place. Now if they ever get more significant publicity out of this protest it can only be negative IF the security measures are tightened(notice, that here as in my original reply it’s an “if” not a “when”, as I’m simply not knowledgeable enough about the issue, given that Spa is the only F1 track I’d ever visited)

          To summarize: either they won’t get any significant publicity at all, or they will get only the negative type. In my book that’s a failure and a shame. The money they’d wasted on this would be better spent on an experienced campaigning strategist/creativity director or whichever other fancy names they’re called

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th August 2013, 23:00

            @montreal95 – I doubt that possible raised security is anything that will cause a big (if any) backlash from F1 fans worldwide against Greenpeace – its not as if you go from a lax security to top security at once, theres a lot already in place.

            You address the issue of how effective the campaign was, but my point did not even try to discuss that, as its far to hard to gouge that at this moment.
            Instead I highlighted how the example you mentioned of strikes crippling the country and angering most people is wholly out of the scope of what Greenpeace did at the race. They did not cripple a country, not even a race. They just ruffled a couple of feathers, put up some banners, filmed it and put it on Youtube etc, to get a starting point for their campaign against arctic drilling. not more, not less.
            If they somehow succeeded in turning the whole of Belgium or the whole F1 community against them with this, WOW.

  5. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 30th August 2013, 1:29

    Lucky thing that in all those flying tyres at Spa (and pieces of suspension) nobody got hurt.

  6. Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 30th August 2013, 3:20

    Interesting interview with Felipe Massa

    http://www.antena3.com/formula-1/mundial-2013/belgica/noticias/massa-estuviera-ferrari-iria-buen-equipo_2013082500025.html

    Massa said that Alonso has been his toughest team mate in Formula 1. That’s quite interesting, considering that Felipe has been teammates with both Alonso and Raikkonen, he believes that Fernando was a faster teammate than Kimi.

    • Yappy said on 30th August 2013, 4:17

      1. Toughest does not mean quickests.
      2. Massa is 3/4 of the driver he used to be after Rubens car knocked the fight out of him.
      3. Kimmi has not been his teammate after his stint in Rally. I would guess that Kimmi misses a hand brake on hairpins. I so want Kimmi to treat an F1 car as a rally car. Handbrake turns, fishtails, drifting.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 30th August 2013, 5:18

        Yes, but then he’d complain about the tyres blowing up.

        Also, rally cars don’t drift. Drifting is all about the spectacle of throwing a car as sideways as possible for as long as possible. Rallying is about carrying as much momentum into a corner as possible by balancing the throttle against the angle of entry. If the car goes sideways, that’s only a byproduct of the process.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 30th August 2013, 7:28

      Don’t want to check the numbers but I guess Massa vs Kimi gap was not as wide as Massa vs Alonso. However, Massa has been ordered to let Alonso pass just like he didi in Brazil 2007 when he handed Kimi his lead :)

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 30th August 2013, 9:00

        @jcost
        What gap between Massa and Kimi? The advantage Massa had, you mean? When Felipe Massa and Kimi Raikkonen were teammates from Australia 2007 until Hungary 2009, Massa scored more points, wins, pole positions, and podiums than Raikkonen. The only edge Kimi had during this time was the fact that he won a WDC (barely), while Felipe lost his WDC (again, barely).

        • JCost (@jcost) said on 1st September 2013, 22:14

          +1 @kingshark I was too lazy to check the numbers and the picture was not completely clear on my mind but I was sure Kimi was not as “bossy” vs Massa as Alonso is. Plus, Kimi has a WDC under his belt because Massa let him go through, but that’s an occasion that I accept team orders.

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 30th August 2013, 9:00

        @jcost
        What gap between Massa and Kimi? The advantage Massa had, you mean? When Felipe Massa and Kimi Raikkonen were teammates from Australia 2007 until Hungary 2009, Massa scored more points, wins, pole positions, and podiums than Raikkonen. The only edge Kimi had during this time was the fact that he won a WDC (barely), while Felipe lost his WDC (again, barely).

    • sumedh said on 30th August 2013, 8:42

      Have to agree with Massa. Kimi might be quicker than Alonso and they both are roughly equal when it comes to racecraft but Alonso can galvanize a team around himself and emasculate the other driver.

      Because of Kimi’s just-drive-and-do-nothing-else attitude, second-tier drivers like Massa have a chance because they can atleast get the emotional backing of the team, even though they are slower.

      But against Alonso, you are really alone.

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 30th August 2013, 9:02

        Because of Kimi’s just-drive-and-do-nothing-else attitude, second-tier drivers like Massa have a chance because they can atleast get the emotional backing of the team, even though they are slower.

        Are you suggesting that the only reason to why Felipe beat Kimi at Ferrari is because he earned the emotional backing from the team? Kimi was not faster than Massa at any point, nor did it ever show, let alone Alonso.

    • I think that’s kind of stating the obvious if I’m honest: Massa was much faster pre-accident, Raikkonen wasn’t exactly stelalr in his Ferrari career and Alonso has arguably been at the top of his game in his time at Ferrari. Not surprised at all by that statement; few would argue Raikkonen were better than Alonso regardless of their form during their respective stints as Massa’s teammate.

    • xjr15jaaag (@xjr15jaaag) said on 30th August 2013, 10:28

      He was also team-mates with Schumacher

  7. Becken Lima (@becken-lima) said on 30th August 2013, 5:14

    Some Italian journos are going crazy, ‘confirming’ that Ferrari just signed Kimi:

    “…Huge hints that Kimi Raikkonen just signed for Ferrari…”
    - Tancredi Palmeri – from Gazzetta and CNN – @tancredipalmeri:

    “…Kimi’s back…”
    - Carlo Vanzini – SKY Italia F1 – @CarloVanzini

  8. Girts (@girts) said on 30th August 2013, 7:39

    Firstly, if Greenpeace’s actions really helped F1 to identify security gaps, then we should be grateful to them, instead of complaining about tighter controls that might be implemented in the future. We should be happy that the trespassers, who pointed out at the lack of security measures, were a group of peaceful protesters and not a terrorist group.

    Secondly, saying that “Greenpeace clearly failed to make the impression” is wishful thinking. The spectators, who were at the circuit saw them and all the main autosport news websites and bloggers, including Joe Saward, reported it, there were actually a lot of headlines involving ‘Greenpeace’, such as ‘Only Greenpeace rivals Vettel’ or ‘Thank God for Greenpeace! Protesters brighten up Belgian borefest’.

    Thirdly, I believe that it’s naive to think that Greenpeace could have achieved more by finding “ways to work with the FIA and the sport”. Even if FIA, FOM and the teams were willing to work together with Greenpeace, protests, flash mobs and similar actions always attract more attention than nice small advertisements or carefully worded press releases. I agree that Greenpeace act a bit like hooligans but I certainly wouldn’t have checked their website if they had delivered the message in some conventional way. Like them or loathe them, you have to admit they did a pretty good job.

    • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 30th August 2013, 8:28

      @girts,

      We should be happy that the trespassers, who pointed out at the lack of security measures, were a group of peaceful protesters and not a terrorist group.

      This. What worried me most is that their podium device had gone undetected for two weeks, and that protesters could gain access to the podium.

      Having said that, I often wish F1 would be more accessible (and more affordable!) for the fans, and airport-level security will only distance the fans further.

  9. jh1806 (@jh1806) said on 30th August 2013, 8:29

    These new wheel retention devices are no bad thing, but as far as I’m aware it won’t stop problems like the one Webber had recently; in that instance I don’t think the mechanic had even got the wheel nut on yet – rendering these new retainers useless.

  10. Eddie (@wackyracer) said on 30th August 2013, 8:46

    It seems crazy but why the hell F1 isn’t on Facebook, YouTube? Instead of connecting with the fans, posting videos they wanna see, instead they are removing them from YouTube if it’s posted from another random user, F1 should take example from MotoGP in this area

    • BMWF1 (@bmwf1) said on 30th August 2013, 10:23

      Facebook? Seriously?

    • @wackyracer absolutely. Hell, they could even follow the trend of advertising at the start of their videos if money is the issue and it’s not like they have to put whole races up, just pretty much what they put on the F1 website now with the race reviews and hopefully a few onboards of key moments!

      Most people will have watched the race by then anyway, or if they delivered the videos well they might even be able to attract new viewers to watch the races in their entirety. I can’t really see how they could lose out on expanding their social media horizons.

  11. Daniel (@collettdumbletonhall) said on 1st September 2013, 15:29

    That Saward column is awful. He should thankful to be in a country where people can do things like that.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.