Safety Car Shenanigans

KPC · 30 Aug 2003, 12:48 (Ref:703329)

I've been away from the forum for a while, so have only had a quick scan of the threads and cannot see that this subject has been discussed.... excuse me if it has.....

The safety car at Brands, in my opinion, totally destroyed the race for Vauxhall. We're all glad Turkington got his win, but it was really Muller's race, you can understand the bloke for being mightily peed off.... I'd probably have done the same in the heat of the moment.

Matt Neal's car sits on the side of the track for the whole race in a dangerous spot... how many times have we seen cars come off there over the years.... dozens, hundreds. In the same race Thompson could easily have hit it. O Neal totaled his car where Matt's sat last year. But no safety car and the race goes on. Then a bit of bumper comes off in a semi-dangerous spot but is not even on the track. And it's only a bit of bumper. Three laps left. On Motors TV Tim Harvey was joking that Alan Gow would have the safety car out when the skirt came off, next minute....

kristof14 · 30 Aug 2003, 15:10 (Ref:703388)

It was the whole bumper if you look, and when the safety car was deployed it was on track it was knocked off by one the cars as the safety car came onto track.

KPC · 1 Sep 2003, 13:24 (Ref:704797)

Nevertheless, big deal. One of the Protons, Leslie I think, knocked it as it came off and it sat just on the outfield edge of the track on the Cooper Straight after Graham Hill Bend.... not exactly the racing line.

KPC · 1 Sep 2003, 13:26 (Ref:704800)

PS - When I say a "bit of bumper", I mean it was merely a bumper...

kristof14 · 1 Sep 2003, 23:12 (Ref:705192)

My point is that it was on track when the safety car was deployed. You can't leave it on track even if it is off the racing line.

maplex · 2 Sep 2003, 08:01 (Ref:705405)

Fair enough. There was an obstruction on the circuit so they deployed the safety car. But it was off the racing line and it was right at the end of the race. Why did they deploy the safety car with only two laps remaining? I recall part of David Leslie’s bumper coming off at Rockingham. That and the various marker posts that were destroyed and on the circuit – why not deploy the safety car then?

KPC · 2 Sep 2003, 12:21 (Ref:705611)

I'm not so sure that it was still on the circuit by the time they deployed the safety car. will have to look. Even so, it wasn't on the track for long so why would the safety car need two laps? More to it than meets the eye methinks.

**Stephen Green** · 3 Sep 2003, 10:23 (Ref:706657)

It quite often takes one lap for the back markers to catch the front runners and therefore it is unsafe for marshals to go trackside until then. The bumper was on the track as I saw the marshal run onto the track to pick it up.

On the matter of Matt Neils car. I was the Observer at post 4 where he came off and it was/is my opinion that the car was in a place of safety. Race Control agreed with me and the race wasn't stopped to move the car.

KPC · 3 Sep 2003, 10:43 (Ref:706690)

Fair dos and an educated opinion. I had a look on the 888 site to see what they thought about the matter......

Quotes:

Muller:

... I’m just a bit sorry, because there was no point for the safety car being put out on track. Matt Neal’s car was left at the side of the track in a bad position for almost the entire 35 laps, if someone had hit that it could have been very dangerous, but the safety car didn’t come out for that. Then when there was a bumper outside of the racing line, at the side of the track, they put the safety car out, I don’t understand this! So what does that mean? They put the safety car out only when the Vauxhall is at the front? Unfortunately, that is the way that it looks.

Mike Nicholson:

“I believe the safety car is a necessary part of racing, for when there is a dangerous situation and it can spice up poor races, but with three laps to go, to deploy the safety car and destroy the race for VX Racing and Yvan, triggering a series of shunts and bumps, makes a mockery of the championship. Yvan fought hard to stay in the lead, only to have it taken away from him.”

Mind they would say that wouldn't they. It's all to play for still.

**Stephen Green** · 3 Sep 2003, 11:05 (Ref:706726)

Just to try and clarify the 'general' viewpoint regarding a request for a race stop or safety car. If a car comes off during a race or pracctice session it is the Observer on that post who makes the initial judgement whether to ask for a stop or not. The Observers opinion is based on several matters such as; will another car be likely to hit it if the race is allowed to continue (this opinion can only be reached by having good knowledge of the type of accidents that 'normally' happen on that post). Is the car in such a position as to endanger the lives of other drivers or possibly marshals/spectators. This opinion is then passed to Race Control who then take the decision to deploy the safety car or, to let the race run unhindered. As with all decisions made in this manner there is an element of risk but, if you red flagged or deployed the safety car for every incident, then there would be precious little racing taking place.

I hope that helps you to understand some of the decisions that are taken during a race meeting.

KPC · 3 Sep 2003, 11:17 (Ref:706753)

You know from our previous chats Stephen that I value your opinion. But considering your words above it still seems a bit on the over-cautious side that the safety car was deployed... at the end of the day I assume it was the marshals decision, right or wrong.

Neil Adams · 3 Sep 2003, 11:22 (Ref:706764)

i think the wrong decision was made, Neals car was in a very dangerous position as far as i'm concerned. it was very near to where o neill had big smash last year. If another car had a problem at paddock couldn't it have ended up in the same place, what about thompsons spin for example?

**Stephen Green** · 3 Sep 2003, 11:27 (Ref:706771)

Unlikely in my opinion. The vast majority of accidents that happen at Paddock end up in the gravel trap on the outside of the circuit. That is one of the reasons you will normally see more marshals there than on the inside. It is impossible to take every eventuality into account and so you have to make an informed judgement and live with the results.

KPC, I wasn't the Observer for the debris incident and so can't really tell you why a safety car was called for. I can only make an informed guess and that may not concur with what actually happened.

Neil Adams · 3 Sep 2003, 11:32 (Ref:706780)

thanks for your official informtaion, agree that its best to keep the racing goin thou!

tecmerc · 3 Sep 2003, 11:47 (Ref:706799)

i think the right decision was taken. safty should always come first.

it might not have been on the racing line, but the cars dont always stick to the racing line.

maplex · 3 Sep 2003, 12:34 (Ref:706847)

Quote:

Originally posted by tecmerc
i think the right decision was taken. safty should always come first.

it might not have been on the racing line, but the cars dont always stick to the racing line.

Which brings us back to the question "Why didn't they deploy the safety car for Matt Neal?"

As you rightly point out "the cars don't always stick to the racing line." Thompsons car could have easily shot back across the track.

It's not safe down at Haillwood Hill!

[Edit: pictures removed, please read the FAQ regarding image size and copyright issue. Redshoes]

**Stephen Green** · 3 Sep 2003, 13:47 (Ref:706944)

Maplex I think I have already answered your question in my posts above.

paulzinho · 3 Sep 2003, 15:08 (Ref:707032)

Its no use comparing two different incidents. They are by their very nature different,you can't write a rulebook for every eventuality, its why we all have opinions, though it seems that we sometimes disagree.

Having said that, I still havent seen a video of the race so can't really comment at the moment on what happenned.

maplex · 3 Sep 2003, 15:09 (Ref:707034)

Stephen, I have read your posts and agree with you completely.

I didn’t think that Matt Neal’s car required the ‘assistance’ of a safety car, and I did not think that there was a reason for it toward the end of the race.

My last post was not my opinion; I was merely trying to make a point.
If Matt Neal’s car didn’t warrant a safety car, then I don’t think the bumper should have.
If you think it was essential for the bumper, then shouldn’t you be questioning why it wasn’t brought out for Matt’s car?

:confused:

**Stephen Green** · 3 Sep 2003, 15:14 (Ref:707041)

I wasn't on the post that covered the bumper so can't really make any useful comment on that incident. The Observer at that post or Race Control obviously thought there was good reason though?

maplex · 3 Sep 2003, 15:41 (Ref:707068)

Fair dos. When you watch the racing as a spectator, you form an opinion that does not take into consideration all the people that are involved in making the calls (well at least I don't). The good thing about this forum is that you can talk with those people and realise that you should look at the individual incidents, not necessary lump them all into one category (which is the point that has been made time and again in this post).

Having said that, I still think it was a bad call. But then that’s my bias opinion as a spectator.

manicmarshal · 3 Sep 2003, 17:59 (Ref:707213)

Just to add my twopennorth. We were stood opposite pit lane where the safety car exited and with a good view of the bumper on the track. The lights on the safety car came on before the bumper was knocked onto the outer edge of the track by one of the Honda's I believe. Once the lights show then the car is committed to action. Very unfortunate for Yvan I know. However, if everything went smoothly we'd probably have nothing to talk about.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
No safety car	Rowdy	Australasian Touring Cars.	49	11 Feb 2005 09:51
Safety Car	F1JordanUk	Marshals Forum	5	30 Sep 2004 00:05
Safety	marcus	Rallying & Rallycross	5	2 Mar 2001 11:35