Today’s Indianapolis 500 race started out with three accidents, one right after the other, involving cars who skidded out of control because their tires were too cold to grip the track.
Formula 1 racing allows tires to be pre-heated before being placed on the cars. Why can’t Indycars have pre-heated tires too?!
Just another one of those “traditions” like not racing in the rain, I suppose?
And look at it another way: without all the cautions, oval racing would be more boring than it already is. I’m sure I’ll catch some shit for that one, but hey, this is IMHO. 
Todays Monaco Grand Prix was much more entertaining than the Indy 500. Bear in mind that I consider the Monaco GP one of the most boring races of the season, since overtaking is virtually impossible in Monte Carlo.
(Yeah, I know oval racing allows for numerous overtaking possibilities. But that’s just plain slipstreaming. Skilfull, sure, but hardly worth anything when your opponent regains his position the next lap. No means to defend your line, because 1/10th of a second off the accelerator means the loss of 5 places.)
Tire warmers are used all over in racing. In most, they’re basically useless. If the race begins from a standing start (unusual, except for motorcycle racing) they can be helpful, but the effect only lasts for a short while. In the Indy 500 there are a series of parade and warmup laps, and by the time the green flag drops, the cars have traveled about ten miles. Whatever the tire temp when the car rolls out of pit lane, by race start they’re basically the same temperature with or without pre-heating.
Broadcasters get too latched onto one explanation for the early crashes. Remember the talk about the “slippery white line”? The on-air-talent-bozos went on and on about how the line was causing crashes because drivers would touch it and then lose traction. All the white line talk ended when they interviewed a driver (Andretti?). They asked him about the line being the cause of crashes, and he said the line wasn’t slippery and had nothing to do with the accidents. Oops!
Assuming that the OP is factual, wouldn’t being able to handle your car as the tires warmed up be part of the skill set that is being tested in the race? There may have been 3 accidents, but there were far more drivers who were able to handle the conditions, and thus deserved to finish better than those who weren’t.
Harald Bluetooth (the wireless protocol?) wrote:
True, and this would mean that pre-heating wouldn’t have done a damn thing to prevent those first three bang-bang-bang accidents in this year’s Indy 500.
But what about when they change tires at a pit-stop? During the 200 laps of the Indy 500, the average car will change all of its tires 4 or 5 times. And each time, it’ll pull out of pit lane and right back onto the main track with cold tires. I’d think tire warmers would help here.
I’d just like to mention at this juncture that yesterday’s CART Milwaukee Mile race also featured Indycars having trouble on a cold track. Thank you, and good evening.
I didn’t really have much of an opinion on the excitement value, but was a painful day to be a McLaren fan. To see my hopes for a Coulthard win (very well founded, as pole position means a lot in Monte Caarlo) dashed at the start of the freaking formation lap was just torture. Then to see him stuck behind Bernoldi for so long, with Bernoldi falling further and further behind, and knowing that Coulthard would get past him due to pit stop strategy (incidentally, is it me, or does it seem the McLaren’s are always the last to refuel?). And Hakkinen’s car failing yet again. Grumble, grumble.
As for tire warmers, each sport has its own rules that make it what it is. F1 uses grooved tires, CART uses slicks, for example. Also, in F1, they don’t have those banked turns, so cold tires would be much more of an issue. At the Belgian GP, for example, the race starts going into a hairpin, followed by Eau Rouge, one of the toughest turns in the whole series. The pit lane ends right after the hairpin. Not even remotely similar to an oval track where you get a nice bank at high speed, warming the tires up nicely.
That said, I really don’t know whether or not tire warmers would be a good idea in Indy and CART. But I just wanted to point out that the argument that Formula One allows them is not exactly relevant.
Actually, waterj2, F1 uses one banked turn in the entire season. Can you guess which? 
Uh, yeah, I meant to say that. Of course I know which turn it is. It’s on my Windows wallpaper, with Coulthard’s Mclaren on top, from last year.
For the others, the turn is Turn 1 at Indianapolis, part of the Iny 500 track.
McLaren, feh.
Don’t you think Coulthard was a bit of a wuss, being stuck behind an Arrows for 45 laps? And do you agree with me that Ron Dennis and Norbert Haug were WAY out of line when they marched up to Bernoldis pit box post race to call him every name in the book?
Methinks they’d better focus all that anger on getting their launch control system working.
Coldfire, another F1 fan checking in. I said this in the “Unwritten Rules” thread, but maybe you didn’t read it. Here goes:
Quite correct, and I agree that Monaco as a race is a farce, despite its history. But then you said
How does that work? How is not doing something that admit isn’t possible being a “wuss”? I await your clarification.
Nope, the other backmarkers who let DC by knew their place in the food chain, and understood that the sportsmanlike way to climb the food chain is to make the car faster and drive it better, not block those who have already done so. Bernoldi’s “Hey, look, I’m ‘battling for position’ with a McLaren!” act wasn’t competition, it was just being a prick acting out a fantasy.
The fact that Arrows hasn’t been as ambitious with their launch-control effort as the competitive teams (and why would they need it? To get a jump on the Minardis and Prosts?) doesn’t excuse that poor sportsmanship, which may, as I must point out, have decided the championship for Schumacher.
Oh, I have another question, for the first Arrows fan I’ve ever come across: Is it Arrows you support, or is it whatever team happens to have hired Jos Verstappen?
Hey now. No need to drag Jos into this.
OK, a valid question. Note that I said virtually impossible. Given the right speed difference (Coulthard lapped 2.5 seconds per lap quicker than Bernoldi after the latter pitted. There’s an overtaking possibility somewhere in that 2.5 seconds for any driver that has the balls to take the risk), one CAN overtake. Hell, Verstappen passed Bernoldi AND three or four other (faster running!) cars in the same stage of the race when Coulthard was “stuck” behind Bernoldi. And he drives an Arrows, an average car at best. It’s about agressiveness, above anything else. DC just didn’t try hard enough.
Food chain? Maybe they were intimidated by the McLaren, and chose to avoid the risk of being rammed off. In any case, they too could have defended their position. The FIA rules state that you may defend your line once per overtaking possibility.
Nonsense. As stated above, he has every right to defend his position. It’s not HIS fault DC had to start at the back of the grid. As long as he obeys the rules, he’s allowed hold back whatever car as long as he can. He didn’t defend his line twice in any instance (you may swerve to the left, but you can’t THEN swerve back to the right), he didn’t shut the door on DC too drastically. Not once. In other words, DC just didn’t try convincingly enough. If he had gotten beside Bernoldi at Loews, there’s no way in hell Bernoldi could have shut the door without getting the both of them in trouble. But that never happened.
I’m open to the possibility that DC was unable to outrun the Arrows on sheer speed down the tunnel “straight”, as the Arrows is known for its low downforce settings, and the McLaren for its high fuel capacity. But there sure were other points on the track where DC could have had a go.
Arrows seem to have their launch control working just fine, as do all the other teams. It’s McLaren that’s had cars stalling on the grid for three races in a row now. No one can be blamed for that but McLaren themselves. And FWIW, try to take note of Verstappens starts during the next Grand Prix or two. He typically overtakes three to four drivers in the first lap.
I’m not an Arrows fan at all. I admire true racers such as the Schumacher brothers, Jacques Villeneuve, Juan Pablo Montoya, and -occasionally- David Coulthard. My dream is that Hakkinen retires after this season, so that Villeneuve can move to McLaren. THEN we’ll have a kick-ass championship on our hands. Verstappen’s OK as far as drivers go. But although I admit to a small level of patriotism, he’s a bit too erratic to be a top driver. Which doesn’t mean that he’s never exciting: I fondly remember Canada 2000, where Jos claimed an amazing 5th position with a very aggressive drive in the rain. His fastest lap time in the wet was even better than Schumachers, which goed to show this kid CAN race in the rain.
I think that if it had been Schumacher or Haakkinen stuck behind Bernoldi they would have created the space to get past, one way or another.
Remember that overtaking by Mansell in the 1992 Monaco grand prix ? He made room when it wasn’t there and very nearly got around Ayrton Senna.
It can be done but it taeks a differant sort of person to Coulthard.
Having said that Coulthard might well have done just the right thing, the two point he got may mean all the differance to the final total, risking it all on dodgy overtaking attempts and getting nothing at all could well turn out to have been the worst strategy possible, only time will tell.
There were retirements aplenty in that race, just keep going and the points were likely to come.
If had Bernoldi allowed Coulthard past instead of defending his line and slowing himself down there is a good chance he would have got some points for himself but spoiling it for Coulthard spoiled it for himself, not very clever driving by Bernoldi at all, sometimes being pragmatic yields better results, ask Alain Prost.
Coldy? You’re now claiming that passing in Monaco is “virtually” impossible, but anyone who doesn’t try it is still a wuss. In fact, you seem to be on the edge of admitting that anyone who DOES try it is foolish.
I think casdave is right; attempting an “involuntary” pass on a narrow track where an extra centimeter to the side has you scraping your wheels off on the Armco is foolish. Monaco isn’t a technically impossible place to pass, but a smart, sensible driver won’t try it. But I disagree that Schumacher or Hakkinen would have tried it, either (Montoya? Maybe) - that’s a move for a driver with nothing to lose, not for the championship contender trying to get some points.
Re the risk to the backmarkers of being “rammed off” by McLaren: Get serious. Any ramming move takes the ramming car off too. Schumacher used to be that big an ass, as recently as Jerez 1999, but I can’t think of any of today’s drivers who would even consider it, on ANY circuit.
I do acknowledge that Bernoldi was technically within the written rules, but insist that he was in extreme violation of the unwritten principles of sportsmanship. Furthermore, he was only in technical compliance because the marshals mistakenly withdrew the blue flag. Under the rules, that’s not only for cars being lapped, but for slower cars in the way of faster ones (which was undeniably the case). If the blue-flagged car has failed to allow the pass after 3 corners, it gets a 10-second stop-and-go penalty. Haug and Dennis should have gone after the marshals, not just Bernoldi.
I also acknowledge that the bugs in McLaren’s launch control system are their own fault, borne of their greater ambition, but I won’t go as far as you and suggest that makes an Arrows a better car that more deserves the points. Get real on that, too.
Re Canada 2000, since you mention it: I was THERE, and the rain was pretty light, although enough to cause a few slideoffs. The main effect was to scramble the field with tire-change pit stops (I hate those). Verstappen managed to finish in the points only by being a lucky guesser on his tire choices, driving slowly and cautiously anyway to make sure he finished (a move typical of Minardi, too - sad, though), and taking advantage of the attrition rate (always high in Montreal, even when dry).
I don’t notice Verstappen’s starts, usually - they’re so far back on the grid that the image of his car on the TV screen is too tiny. I’ll look next time, if I get bored 
.
I don’t think you’ll ever see Villeneuve at McLaren, btw - that’s a buttoned-down organization like the Williams team he left, and he’s a free spirit. Hakkinen’s replacement will be another buttoned-down type. Villeneuve seems happy to have an increasingly-competitive car and a more-fun environment at BAR.
Er, make that 1997, not 1999, as the year Schumacher tried to shunt Villeneuve at Jerez, of course.
Au contraire. I’m saying it takes a lot of balls and a convincing drive, but it CAN be done. Especially with a car that’s arguably the best designed package out there.
Foolish for some, perhaps. A lot in F1 is determined by reputation. When Bernoldi would have seen Schumachers Ferrari in his mirrors (let’s assume Schumacher had the problem DC had, and started way back), chances are he would not have defended his line that thoroughly. Schumachers reputation is such that the other drivers KNOW he’ll have a go. And since everyone is keen on finishing, they won’t try to stop him - too hard. With DC -with all due respect- the case is slightly different. He is not the agressive opportunist Schumacher or Villeneuve is. Other drivers KNOW he can be hesitant, and take advantage of that fact. I can’t fault Bernoldi for doing just that, as he was racing for a position.
I didn’t make myself completely clear there. Of course, I did not mean to suggest that any driver would deliberately ram someone off (although it has happened, as you stated - but these incidents are usually championship deciders, and are thus somewhat different, IMHO. Pretty, they sure are not). What I meant to say was the reasoning above. If Bernoldi had been dealing with a more agressive driver, he would have given more room to overtake because he would have KNOWN he’d run a risk of a collision when he didn’t. Perhaps some of the cars behind Bernoldi (I mean, how much of a racer is Tarzo Marques, for example?) were more easily intimidated by DC in the McLaren, and moved over more rapidly. But obviously, DC’s reputation is not as universal as e.g. Schumachers.
It will not surprise you that I disagree.
He was fighting for a position, and that’s the end of it - as far as I’m concerned. And seeing how McLaren did not file an official protest, and FIA didn’t issue a fine to Bernoldi for obstruction, it would appear that the facts lie closer to my explanation than yours. Fines and protests HAVE occured in cases outside the written rules before. This, apparently, was not such a case.
If I am not mistaken, a car in the same race lap can only be blue-flagged if an unusual problem or occurance is slowing it down beyond normal racing speed. Let’s say it’s raining, Bernoldi’s still on dry weather tyres, and DC already has the full wets. THEN a blue flag would have been appropriate. Another instance is an obvious technical defect on the slower car, such as a front wing that was smashed into pieces. I did check http://www.fia.com, but unfortunately, the F1 rules I was able to drag up did not seem to cover the blue flag matter.
But as far as I know, there’s no way a car in 100% technical condition can be blue-flagged because a car behind him “appears” faster. If he’s faster, he’ll just have to make a pass himself. That’s racing.
Where did I ever state that an Arrows is somehow a better car than a McLaren? It isn’t. What I WAS saying, is that it is at least very strange that all the teams, including Arrows (whom, as you can see above, I describe as “an average car at best”), seem to have their launch control working. Either that, or they’re not using them. McLaren is struggling in this regard, and it doesn’t look good on them. After all, they ARE a top team with a huge budget.
I love those!!
They’re part of the game. I love races with changing conditions, and the turmoil they cause. And I love nothing more than good rain drivers driving the socks off of the rest of the field.
Were you even paying attention in Montreal?
First off, Verstappen doesn’t make his tyre decision. His team does. Most teams have weather spotters on various angles and distances around the track, and if they’re told there’s going to be rain, the drivers WILL come in. A very, very select group of drivers can get away with overruling a tactical decision. If Schumacher says he’ll stay out on dry weather tyres despite of some rain, Ross Brawn will trust his decision. If the Arrows team are calling Verstappen in for wets, there’s no debate. He’s coming in, period. So he wasn’t a “lucky guesser”: his team did their homework right. Again, all part of the game.
Secondly, Verstappen did NOT get to fifth by driving slowly and cautiously that race. There are numerous race reports on the Internet, of course.I’ll just quote from the first relevant hit I got on Google:
Believe me, I’ve cursed at Verstappen numerous times for fucking up a good race. But Montreal 2000 was one of the highlights of his carreer, and to say he drove like a sissy is, as you can see, plain silly.
Please do. He’s not the most fluent driver in the field, but dammit, that kid takes risks and is a true racer. Whether he’s my fellow countryman or not is completely insubstantial.
I think you may be right there. I’m just hoping Villeneuve will have a shot at the title again someday. If BAR’s the team that can do that for him, more power to them.
Well, that was longwinded. I hope I’ve demonstrated that my opinions on F1 aren’t completely unbased. I like to think I know my racing stuff.
Sorry for sounding argumentative, Coldfire - but arguing with other fans about things that don’t matter is part of the fun of being a fan, eh what?
I know Schumacher picks his own tires, and many other drivers have the ultimate call as well - they have the best information about their traction over the entire course, over which conditions can considerably vary. The Arrows drivers may not have that authority, though; I don’t know, and I’ll take your word for it they don’t.
I should have acknowledged that the blue-flag rule is almost never enforced as written, which would explain why McLaren didn’t even bother protesting, even though they should:
I think that covers it. Time for FIA to do what they say. Look for some minor face-saving rule change this winter.
Re Coulthard’s ability vs. reputation: I suspect a lot changed inside his head after that plane crash in Lyon last year (and since he dumped that distracting supermodel girlfriend) - he seems to be a little more aggressive and consistent, like a younger Hakkinen, showing ability that most of us had concluded just wasn’t there. It’s time to give the dude his props - while we’re simultaneously wondering what happened to Mika’s head (maybe he should dump Erja? But then who would the cameras focus on in the McLaren pits?)
Oh yeah, the OP was about tirewarmers and why CART and IRL don’t use them. I think that’s just an example of the consequences of team budgets that are only 5-10% of F1 team budgets. The top CART teams, such as Ganassi, Penske, and Patrick can run 4 drivers and 5-6 cars for a full season for $5 million or so, and the rest of US open-wheel teams are tighter than that. Minardi pays around $25 million just to barely qualify 2 cars with rookie drivers, and Schumacher’s salary alone is over $30 million with a Ferrari team budget of over $100 million. It’s very common to see US teams scrambling for sponsors (vs. NASCAR competition for those same dollars) while hearing about McLaren adding marble floors to their garages at Silverstone, for instance. It’s hard to say that the quality of racing is any less, though.
And it’s not like it should be a problem, either - these drivers all came up through the lower formulas, where they were fortunate to even have new tires for each race, much less darling little color-matched cozies for them. Coming out of the pits on cold tires is nothing new, and rarely results in a crash. The crash problems almost always seem to come from excessive scrubbing while following the pace car (i.e. Roberto Guerrero crashing during the parade lap the year he had the pole at Indy), and catching dirty air during restarts when the car in front swerves, not from low traction as such.
Well, you were able to find the blue flag rules. Inconclusive, if you ask me. I can also interpret them in Bernoldi’s favour: he wasn’t temporarily slower than his usual pace, and he wasn’t consistently slower than Coulthard. By that I mean that Coulthard was indeed faster, and could have overtook him on any other circuit in the world. Just not on Monaco. That’s a fact all drivers have to live with, no matter where they start. Whether they decide to take a big risk or not is up to them.
Also, regarding part “b”: the blue flag can can only be applied, from the looks of it, if a driver seems unaware of a rapidly approaching car. I think we can agree that Bernoldi was at least vaguely aware of a grey-and-black car behind him. Maybe he thought it was a Minardi.
I don’t see FIA changing that rule anytime soon either. They like their rules vague and open for interpretation. It’s not the most democratic organisation in the world, to use an understatement.
Coulthard has certainly gained a lot in consistancy and coolheadedness over the last few years. But in some cases, it DOES seem to have cost him his “edge”. Sure, a 1995 Coulthard would smash his car upon entering the Adelaide pit lane (whilst in the LEAD, even), but he’d also battle it out on the track like a maniac. Whil I certainly respect him more as a driver now, part of me is sad that he’s no longer part of the Mad Dogs of F1. Is it his plane crash that caused him to change? Who knows.
Hakkinen definately seems out of it. Rumour has it that his new father status is messing with his willingness to take the odd risk. Schumacher doesn’t seem to have this problem.
Ditch Elja? I’m sure tired of seeing her in that McLaren box. But the alternative is probably that bald first mechanic that’s usually next to her. Hmmm. Tough one there.
If a car that qualified on the back row is in a tussle with the pole winner, that’s evidence enough to me that it’s “consistently slower” - but maybe there’s room to for interpretation .
You’re right about FIA rules being deliberately vague and their enforcement being capricious, although I don’t find that charming. It’s worth pointing out Mosley’s bias toward Ferrari and a few other favored teams, as well (perhaps simply for marketing purposes, perhaps not) - i.e. that barge board template fiasco.
Anyway, all this crap is certainly more fun for a racing fan than NASCAR, the redneck circuit where rivalries don’t go any deeper than “Dale Earnhardt was the bestest and Jeff Gordon sucks!”, or the endless petty CART vs. IRL mouseshit among the few of us who still care about them.
Hmm… Erja Hakkinen and the bald mechanic … you don’t suppose?
** Coldy**
You state that Bernoldi was not temporarily slower than his usual pace but I disagree, simply because when Coulthard first latched on to him Bernoldi was circulating at the same rate as his team mate Jos Verstappen and was only a second or so behind him.
As soon as Couthard was on to him Bernoldi concentrated more on defending his line than keeping up with Verstappen, result was that Verstappen just drove away.
The Arrows cars and drivers usually put in similar lap times, and are evenly matched, I just do not believe that Verstappen was driving so well that day that he left Bernoldi for a whole lap.
In my view Bernoldi was considerably slower than his usual pace and consistantly so for all the time that Coulthard was behind him, and once he had been overtaken by dint of Coulthard’s pit strategy he actually went faster, though I suppose one might put that down to new tyres.