[Official] Brazilian Grand Prix 2016: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[bella]

i don't really know what the right answer is. i suspect this race was mostly run correctly apart from the second red flag, but it's hard to say because the sport has been guilty of crying wolf about weather conditions in recent years.

charlie worked with what he has, which is a field of cars running on a selection of tyres which aren't suitable for proper long downpours.

unfortunately for the formula, there's got to be almost half the races on the calendar that are prone to those kind of downpours during the season.

but i guess the dilemma is if you demand tyres from pirelli that are able to deal with more water to reduce the aquaplaning, then you have increased spray because these tyres have to displace the water somewhere. so what do we want? more spray or more aquaplaning?

it's valid to say that running cars on the circuit displaces the water, but that only works if there's somewhere for the water to go - if the air is humid and it's still raining it doesn't evaporate, it just hangs in the air. spa and the nurburgring are great ones for that.

falling back on the bianchi accident as a defence for cautiousness is ridiculous - that's completely irrelevant and only comes into play when you have to recover a car.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve_r

What was the deal with Gutierrez? The cameras seems to show him in a big strop, but I could not work out what was the cause of the commotion from the Ch4 highlights.

It wasn't clear from the broadcast. Post race info from Haas said he was having electrical issues. MGU-K and then MGU-H failure before retirement. Apparently he was heated on the radio and very negative toward the team. He also has been publicly negative toward the team in recent days. My guess is that all of this is an example of why he lost his ride for next year. I suspect his F1 career is over? I think if Magnussen was available for the last race that they would put him in vs. Gutierrez? But that is not an option. So he will likely see out the season.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

A further note about the tyres.

If the FIA continue to severely restrict the amount of testing that Pirelli are permitted to conduct, then it is unlikely that they, or any tyre manufacturer for that matter, will be able to construct a tyre that will be able to deal with those conditions.

Some of the blame must also be attached to the teams also, as they don't like to risk their multi-million dollar cars during testing/practice even if the track is slightly damp (please excuse very, very slight exaggeration).

Lack of proper testing under the right conditions is the reason that both the dry and the wet tyres are not as good as they should be. And that can be squarely laid at the feet of the FIA.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by bella

falling back on the bianchi accident as a defence for cautiousness is ridiculous - that's completely irrelevant and only comes into play when you have to recover a car.

I think it is entirely relevant as surely the Binachi family case against the FIA is based on the FIA's and their race control's management of the race in appaling wet weather and track conditions, thereby if another incident had happened in Brazil it would surely only have empowered their argument abut the governing bodies direction of wet weather races and their responsibility to drivers/marshalls/spectators?

Sadly, as this is 2016 and not 1956, everyone is now deemed responsible for something and there is an army of lawyers ready to prove it...

[chillibowl]

The race was ran in full and no one got hurt. race control carried out their primary jobs well enough for me.

would have been more upset if the race was cut short...one of the benefits of the sport being moved behind a pay wall or onto a specialty channel.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

I think it is entirely relevant as surely the Binachi family case against the FIA is based on the FIA's and their race control's management of the race in appaling wet weather and track conditions, thereby if another incident had happened in Brazil it would surely only have empowered their argument abut the governing bodies direction of wet weather races and their responsibility to drivers/marshalls/spectators?

Sadly, as this is 2016 and not 1956, everyone is now deemed responsible for something and there is an army of lawyers ready to prove it...

point taken, even if it is a wide ranging case that in context covers pretty much everything, and could be used as an excuse for anything from race stoppages to charlie nipping for a wee half an hour before the race start. that's about accountability rather than blame if you ask me, i don't think the family are aiming to blame anybody aside from procedure. as it happened, there was plenty of daylight, good overall visibility and no cars being recovered dangerously. it's really lazy to fall back on "yes, but it was *raining*" after ticking all those boxes.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

I think it is entirely relevant as surely the Binachi family case against the FIA is based on the FIA's and their race control's management of the race in appaling wet weather and track conditions, thereby if another incident had happened in Brazil it would surely only have empowered their argument abut the governing bodies direction of wet weather races and their responsibility to drivers/marshalls/spectators?

Sadly, as this is 2016 and not 1956, everyone is now deemed responsible for something and there is an army of lawyers ready to prove it...

However the eventual cause of Bianchi's death wasn't the wet weather, it was because he ran into a digger recovering a car. The wet weather was likely a contributing factor, however if the digger wasn't there, he would have very likely survived and had a very survivable impact.

Charlie has been playing chicken with recovering cars for a while. There was the case quite recently at the German GP at Hockenheim when a car (I think it was one of the Force Indias) span on the pit straight into the pit wall, and marshals were forced to go out onto a live race track to recover the spun car. Every fibre in my body was screaming for the safety car to be called out, but it wasn't...

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

However the eventual cause of Bianchi's death wasn't the wet weather, it was because he ran into a digger recovering a car. The wet weather was likely a contributing factor, however if the digger wasn't there, he would have very likely survived and had a very survivable impact.

This has been rehashed countless times, and will no doubt be tested in the Bianchi court case in due course. However, I would contend that, as stated in the FIA's official report, the incident was caused primarily by the excessive speed of his car, and that he lost control of the car.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This has been rehashed countless times, and will no doubt be tested in the Bianchi court case in due course. However, I would contend that, as stated in the FIA's official report, the incident was caused primarily by the excessive speed of his car, and that he lost control of the car.

Under yellow flags too. He ignored instructions to slow down. Nobody wants to blame the guy who died, but, unfortunately, he ignored yellows and went off and hit the object that was the reason for the yellow flag.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This has been rehashed countless times, and will no doubt be tested in the Bianchi court case in due course. However, I would contend that, as stated in the FIA's official report, the incident was caused primarily by the excessive speed of his car, and that he lost control of the car.

I couldn't disagree more. Well the "official report" was bound not to self-incriminate. That digger had no place on a live track, especially in the wet. I guess it depends whos call it was for the digger to be there if you want to get down to who made that call, was it the marshals acting on their own or was it a direct call from race control and so on.

[bella]

and again, we go back to the issue of pointing a finger at an individual for something that is endemic in a society or sport.

[Greem]

Maybe we need a variant of Godwin's law here...

"As a discussion on Tenths pertaining to F1 safety grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Bianchi's incident or Charlie Whiting being to blame approaches 1"

Meanwhile, back to the Brazilian GP...

[chillibowl]

going back to the issue with the compounds...are the wet tires that bad?

granted the lack of testing plays a big part in all of this but yesterday i couldnt help but feel that more of the fault lies at the feet of the drivers/teams for not being able to figure out the conditions.

rather, if it was just down to the quality of the wet weather tires, then Max (and DR to a lessor extent) using so many different lines and essentially finding more grip on the wetter parts of the circuit (the non dry racing line) wouldn't have been possible if the wets didnt work.

and how much of it came down to most of the cars, particularly at the end, just being on a really old set of wets?

have to say (in hindsight obviously) that several teams would have tremendously benefited from a late race tire stop and possibly would have negated RB's final stint charge.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This has been rehashed countless times, and will no doubt be tested in the Bianchi court case in due course. However, I would contend that, as stated in the FIA's official report, the incident was caused primarily by the excessive speed of his car, and that he lost control of the car.

I wasn't intending to go over ground as I know that we have trodden it long and oft in the past. The link tothe Brazil GP however is that part of the Bianchi family case against the FIA (aside from Marussia and FOM) is the fact that the race took place in heavy rain and they 'are seeking responsbility for any failings', this is why I would suggest that CW and the FIA are looking very carefully (perhaps even more so) how they are managing races in heavy rain.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

I wasn't intending to go over ground as I know that we have trodden it long and oft in the past. The link tothe Brazil GP however is that part of the Bianchi family case against the FIA (aside from Marussia and FOM) is the fact that the race took place in heavy rain and they 'are seeking responsbility for any failings', this is why I would suggest that CW and the FIA are looking very carefully (perhaps even more so) how they are managing races in heavy rain.

I appreciate that; my response was to Sodemo who seems to believe that it was all the fault of the recovery vehicle. He would seem to be ignoring the fact that Bianchi failed to observe the marshals' instructions that they indicated by waving double yellow flags. The meaning of the waved yellow is that the driver should be prepared to stop at the direction of the marshal if called upon to do so.

By virtue of the fact that Bianchi was incapable of even controlling his car, he demonstrated that he had ignored the marshal's instructions. He was incapable of stopping, and from the moment that he lost control, his car could have gone anywhere.

Drivers must take responsibility for what they do, and the FIA needs to ensure that unsafe driving practices are brought to an end.

[gert]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

...however the second red flag was a joke. Lots of drivers were saying its approaching inter conditions and yet they called it off.

History showed them wrong, ask Red Bull.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I appreciate that; my response was to Sodemo who seems to believe that it was all the fault of the recovery vehicle. He would seem to be ignoring the fact that Bianchi failed to observe the marshals' instructions that they indicated by waving double yellow flags. The meaning of the waved yellow is that the driver should be prepared to stop at the direction of the marshal if called upon to do so.

By virtue of the fact that Bianchi was incapable of even controlling his car, he demonstrated that he had ignored the marshal's instructions. He was incapable of stopping, and from the moment that he lost control, his car could have gone anywhere.

Drivers must take responsibility for what they do, and the FIA needs to ensure that unsafe driving practices are brought to an end.

As Mike has said, this has been re-hashed a million times. OK, it Jules hadn't hit the digger then the accident wouldn't have been so tragic. So if the digger hadn't have been there when & where he went off the track then that would have been the case. However it was due to his driving at extremely excessive speed in extremely poor conditions that caused him to lose control and therefore leave the track in the first place, what happened after that was as a direct result of his driving...

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

As Mike has said, this has been re-hashed a million times. OK, it Jules hadn't hit the digger then the accident wouldn't have been so tragic. So if the digger hadn't have been there when & where he went off the track then that would have been the case. However it was due to his driving at extremely excessive speed in extremely poor conditions that caused him to lose control and therefore leave the track in the first place, what happened after that was as a direct result of his driving...

But what about if a car failure occurred? What if the rear wing fell off? What if the front suspension failed and they carreered off at unabated speed? As race director you could be considering all possibilities. OK in Bianchi's case, perhaps he was going too fast for the conditions, but it was raining, conditions would have been changing lap by lap.

If you have a digger or other heavy vehicle on the race track, for me it should always be an automatic safety car.

I've long thought this was always the policy anyway, so I was surprised when this hasnt been followed. Again, ive noticed more (surprising) instances where marshals were sent onto a live race track in recent years, "yep, we can handle this one under waved yellows", drivers will always push what is allowed within the framework of the rules, which is why they are going many metres over kerbs and over run off zones.

[wolfhound]

On the subject of Pirelli tyres in the wet, I cannot remember when Pirelli ever produced a decent rain tyre.

II wonder what would the Brazilian GP have been like if we had competing tyre companies like we had in the past.

[S griffin]

The one thing I'm amazed at the end is that we still got the full 71 laps

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by S griffin

The one thing I'm amazed at the end is that we still got the full 71 laps

The reason that Charlie Whiting has given for the 2nd red flag is that after viewing the weather radar and speaking to the weather specialists, he came to the opinion that by stopping the race again, and thus stopping the clock from ticking down, that he felt that there would be a weather window great enough to allow the race to complete.

He felt that it was a better option than just having to send out the safety car when the rain became heavier, which it did, and the possibility that the race might have had to be stopped at the two hour mark. And with the cars still stuck behind the pace car.

And his educated gamble seems to have paid off.

[TrapezeArtist]

Bianchi is a red herring so we can dispense with that straight away.

There are 3 issues with driving in the rain:
1 Chassis handling
2 Tyre grip
3 Spray

In my experience, if my car was handling well in the wet I loved it. If it was handling badly I hated it. Unfortunately F1 teams don't design their cars to handle in the wet.

I don't know how good or bad the current F1 wets are, but I have no doubt they could be good enough.

Spray is a nightmare, scary beyond belief and requires a driver to put his safety in the hands of random chance. There seems to be little chance of preventing spray once the degree of wetness passes beyond "damp" so perhaps someone has to bite the bullet and say F1 (and all other classes) don't race in those conditions. That will be a tough call and flies in the face of Bernie's desire to put on a "show", but perhaps it's the only way. Or perhaps someone will then develop an radically new form of surface dressing that avoids spray, and can then be applied to normal roads. In which case racing will once again be able to claim that it "improves the breed".

[S griffin]

The last thing F1 needs to do is get rid of wet racing, we just need to continue to improve safety for the drivers

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by S griffin

The last thing F1 needs to do is get rid of wet racing, we just need to continue to improve safety for the drivers

In some ways I agree with you, but that is mostly because the right sort of wet race gives us the most exciting racing we get. The trouble is, the wrong sort of wet race gives us a chaotic stop-go mess of safety cars and red flags, and/or requires the drivers to take unnecessary risks in spray.

If only we could get the dry weather racing to be as exciting as the best wet races, we wouldn't need racing in unacceptably dangerous conditions.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

In some ways I agree with you, but that is mostly because the right sort of wet race gives us the most exciting racing we get. The trouble is, the wrong sort of wet race gives us a chaotic stop-go mess of safety cars and red flags, and/or requires the drivers to take unnecessary risks in spray.

If only we could get the dry weather racing to be as exciting as the best wet races, we wouldn't need racing in unacceptably dangerous conditions.

All it needs is for the FIA to stipulate that the cars should have more power than grip; exactly the same scenario as a truly wet race.