Artificial Wet Races

[Pupik]

I am not a fan of the idea; racing has enough inherent risks and dangers. Plus, it just seems so...fake. Not to mention, when a sprinkler head breaks, you have more standing water than necessary from the eventual "fountain".

http://autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89706

 

[Car Man]

it's not the danger side of it i don;t like it just seams too controlled, nature will spice up the races when it sees fit so why have artifical rain, i think bernie has finally lost his mind and needs to go now before he sinks the FIA

 

[Northstar]

I always thought one of the biggest draws of wet racing was that it's unpredictable, this would eliminate that entirely since the teams would know exactly when and how much water they would be dealing with.

 

[lbsf1]

It would by pretty cool to have, however I can't help but feel it makes it seems abit strange and that it is no longer natural kind of defeats the point slightly.

 

[Barra333]

I agree with Pupik - not a great idea. It might have novelty value, but I would mcuh rather see any number of other things introduced to encourage overtaking. Having said that, I was pretty happy with the action last season anyway.

Having seen what it was like in Abu Dhabi, certainly with a wet element it would look spectacular - and visibility shouldn't be a problem because there would be no clouds.

Err.. isnt most of the reduced visibility due to spray coming from the tyres?

 

[Alex.]

I agree with Pupik - not a great idea. It might have novelty value, but I would mcuh rather see any number of other things introduced to encourage overtaking. Having said that, I was pretty happy with the action last season anyway.

Err.. isnt most of the reduced visibility due to spray coming from the tyres?

+ the floodlights at Abu Dhabi. It's a ridiculous idea in my opinion. The season was easily exciting enough without adding in un-needed danger in form of artificial conditions PURELY to make it better to watch. It's completely unfair on the teams and drivers, and false entertainment.

 

[blaaah]

I would like to see the racing line on tracks be of a lower grip tarmac than the non racing line. Therefore making all parts of the track possible fastest routes.

 

[UK-Gamer]

The racing will feel more 'controlled' and almost staged, which isn't motorsport. After this, you may as well have all cars on RC remotes!! .....Bernie could give HRT some wins then

 

[adam46]

That just corrupts the result of the race.

 

[Touring Mars]

My Grandad always used to say that they should have artificial wet races...

... but if it's a wet race that's needed, then why not just have a Scottish Grand Prix?

 

[Speedster502]

I would like to see the racing line on tracks be of a lower grip tarmac than the non racing line. Therefore making all parts of the track possible fastest routes.

Even if you did that the racing line would still be the shortest route around the track.

Shortest route = Fastest. The lack of grip would just be an extra challenge that drivers would be willing to risk, besides no race track would want to do that, for F1 or any other championship.

Also, on the subject of the first post, what happened to y'know. Real rain?

 

[Vaxen]

If the timing of the sprinkler activation is known by all the teams ahead of time, then the "unpredictability" goes out the window.

If it's kept secret, and sometimes you don't activate the sprinklers at all, then it becomes far too easy to manipulate results, and the resulting drama would overshadow the series.

Imagine if Ferrari is leading, and the sprinklers don't come out. Imagine if the sprinklers come on one lap after the leader pits?

Add this idea to the dustbin along with Bernie's other vacuous notions...

 

[Jim Prower]

What?! Christ, what is F1 coming to, Monster Jam? This is like throwing a purpose-built backflip obstacle on a freestyle course...actually, it's like any of the big obstacles they put on freestyle courses now...Actually...It's like Freestyle. It's just there to please "the fans." No "sport" in it at all.

 

[thesrdic]

Artificial rain during dry races? What's next? Artificial light during night races?

 

[Dan_]

I don't like the idea, the most awesome thing about wet racing is the unpredictability, you never know how long the rain will last, how strong and intense it will be and blablabla.

Forcing this condition would just kill everything that makes it incredible.

Meh.

 

[Ardius]

I echo everyone else's comments - this completely misses the point of wet races. The track being wet is not what makes them exciting, its a mixture of factors. Sounds like someone has taken the "we should just put sprinkler systems on the tracks" joke a bit too far.
The risk or danger doesn't concern me, I'm sure there would be ways around that. The instantly negative effect on the racing concerns me more. The fact people are considering "articial" solutions to improve the racing is just crazy and says it all about how little people know why overtaking has slowly reduced.

it's not the danger side of it i don;t like it just seams too controlled, nature will spice up the races when it sees fit so why have artifical rain, i think bernie has finally lost his mind and needs to go now before he sinks the FIA

For the millionth time, Bernie is not the FIA! He doesn't govern the sport's rules, so it really doesn't matter what he says, the FIA decide on their own what is good for the sport. Thankfully, they seem to realise medal systems and shortcuts in tracks are completely idiotic ideas and have ignored Bernie. But personally I just think this is yet another "Bernie story"...in other words, Bernie says something (seemingly something that he probably doesn't actually believe) that the press jump on so that F1 is mentioned again every week.

 

[astrosdude91]

I don't think Bernie is seriously considering actually going through with this. Typical Bernie, he just says stuff like this to get everyone all worked up.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I always thought one of the biggest draws of wet racing was that it's unpredictable, this would eliminate that entirely since the teams would know exactly when and how much water they would be dealing with.

So play up to the unpredictability: rather than set a designated time when circuits will be flooded, make it completely random. Have a computer randomly decide the following:

1) The probability that the circuit will be flooded. Just because the circuit can be flooded, it doesn’t mean it has to be. And entire weekend could go by without a hint of rain, real or artificial. Most importantly, this information would be kept from the teams. If they don’t know the likelihood of the circuit being flooded, it adds an extra element of uncertainty.

2) The time when the circuit will be flooded. Rather than limiting it to the race, this could apply to the entire weekend. So it might “rain” in FP1 and be completely dry for the rest of the weekend. Or the circuit could be flooded before the parade lap, in the final ten minutes or at any time during the weekend. It could even be flooded overnight so that the circuit is mostly dry at the beginning of the next day.

3) The degree to which the circuit will be flooded. The sprinkler system could be programmed to simulate anything from a light shower to a heavy downpour. Again, keep this from the teams to add the element of the unknown.

4) The percentage of the track to be flooded. Just because you can flood the track, it doesn’t mean you have to. And on some of the longer circuits like Spa, you can get sections of the circuit that are wet while others are completely dry.

So, combine these four completely random variables, and you could end up with a situation in Silverstone where the Wellington Straight, Brooklands, Luffied and Woodcote are flooded with a medium downpour at the end of Q1. Or at Monza, with heavy rain flooding the circuit at 3am on Sunday morning, so that the circuit is largely damp for the race. Or light rain – just enough to make teams consider swapping to intermediate tyres – for the last five laps of Valencia. I think that making the element of artificial flooding completely random is the only way the system could work and be accepted by teams and fans.

The most important part, however, is to test the concept out. I believe Paul Ricard can be flooded so that teams can do wet-weather testing even in the middle of the Mediterranean summer. So, rather than go to Bahrain in August, organise a special running of the French Grand Prix at Paul Ricard and test out the idea of a randomly-flooded circuit. If it works, then we can consider expanding on the idea and applying it to various circuits around the world. If not, then no harm, no foul. And we get the return of the French Grand Prix to compensate.

 

[Ardius]

I can't believe you're actually running with this idea, ludes. Its just so utterly pathetic, more so than medals and probably on a par with the "shortcuts" idea. I just cringe to think of the non-F1 fan asking why they wet the track just to make it exciting. It just sounds rediculous, if the sport ends up resorting to this, I really would stop watching.
No, we should not try this idea and I don't care if it is actually more exciting. I'd rather have my natural dry boring races than a artificially designed scenario like that.

Also:
"Have a computer randomly decide". Computers cannot randomly decide, its impossible for them to perform a true random function. What's wrong with the pure random-ness of natural weather conditions? We have plenty of wet races already (easily one every year)..so what does this really add? Sounds to me more like a suggestion to wet all the circuits to try and re-create the excitment of wet races everywhere...which completely ignores what makes them exciting in the first place.

How about instead of trying these crackpot insane ideas, we actually try to fix the overtaking problem first?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I can't believe you're actually running with this idea, ludes. Its just so utterly pathetic, more so than medals and probably on a par with the "shortcuts" idea. I just cringe to think of the non-F1 fan asking why they wet the track just to make it exciting. It just sounds rediculous, if the sport ends up resorting to this, I really would stop watching.

I wouldn't say I'm running with it. In my mind, we're facing a hypotetical situation where the Powers That Be have said "One way or another, this is absolutely happening", and I'm trying to find a way that I think would make it work in a way that it might be accepted by teams and fans. So if it was absolutely going to happen, what would you prefer: a situation where each and every race was flooded at a pre-determined time and to a pre-determined extent, with all the infromation disclosed to the teams in advance ... or one where the circuit was randomly (for want of a better word) flooded at some point during the weekend to varying extents and degrees? You have to admit, my idea is much closer to a circuit being subjected to natural weather conditions.

Also:
"Have a computer randomly decide". Computers cannot randomly decide, its impossible for them to perform a true random function. What's wrong with the pure random-ness of natural weather conditions?

I modelled it on the lottery.

We have plenty of wet races already (easily one every year)..so what does this really add? Sounds to me more like a suggestion to wet all the circuits to try and re-create the excitment of wet races everywhere...which completely ignores what makes them exciting in the first place.

Ah, but there would be no guarantee that it would rain at all. Like I said, the probability that the circuit would be flooded at some point during the weekend would randomly decided in advance. It could be anywhere between 0% and 100%, with the teams only finding out that percentage twenty minutes before it actually happens. So you can imagine, ten laps into a race, the teams getting a message like "there is a 36% chance that half the circuit will be flooded twenty minutes from now, with conditions akin to a moderate downpour" or "there is an 89% chance the entire circuit will be flooded twnty minutes from now, with conditions akin to a light shower", etc. and they have to react accordingly.

I'm not saying this is a perfect solution or that it will do anything, but one that I think would be better received than simply flooding the circuit for the last ten laps at every race.

 

[Northstar]

Without going into a super in-depth response...

The FIA is already accused of favoritism enough as it is, I could only imagine the firestorm that would arise if Ferrari was trailing until it started "raining". Even if it did just happen to be a game of chance, it however would be a great race if left to nature.

I'm already a fan of a series that's constantly trying to introduce gimmicky things and none have really worked so far.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The FIA is already accused of favoritism enough as it is, I could only imagine the firestorm that would arise if Ferrari was trailing until it started "raining". Even if it did just happen to be a game of chance, it however would be a great race if left to nature.

Then have the probabilities for the weekend decided in advance. Don't tell the teams until the last minute, but show the viewers before the race begins. That way, they'll know the flooding has a good chance of coming. Give the teams a twenty-minute warning that it could flood, and once it is known that it will flood, give them a three-minute warning. Since no circuit has a dry lap time of more than two minutes, every team should be able to pit accordingly. It's then a question of making your strategy work. If any team is caught out on slick tyres when the circuit begins to flood, they will only have themselves to blame. And the system would involve sprinklers stationed around the circuit. If heavy flooding is expected - the teams would know what kind of conditions to expect when the twenty-minute warning is given - then it will take time for the water to build up. It's not a case of simply opening floodgates and letting water wash over the circuit.

 

[RTSolvalou]

Dumbest thing I ever heard.

Also, whoever presses the rain button is 100% responsible for any deaths or injuries that occur.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Dumbest thing I ever heard.

I'm planning on going to Libya and attacking Ghaddafi with hummus until he steps down as leader.

Also, whoever presses the rain button is 100% responsible for any deaths or injuries that occur.

What, exactly, do you have in mind with this "rain button" that would cause deaths and injuries? Floodgates opening and a wave of water sweeping over the circuit? Don't be stupid; it won't be anything like that. If it were to be implemented, it would most likely be modelled on the system at Paul Ricard, which can flood the circuit so that teams can do wet-weather testing. That system uses a series of irrigation channels in the infield to gradually pump water out over the circuit. There has never been a death or injury at Paul Ricard that was a direct result of an accident caused by the circuit being flooded. What Bernie Ecclestone has suggested here is a series of sprinklers spraying water onto the circuit. The circuit would not suddenly go from dry as a bone to being submerged under two centimetres of water. The artificial rain would gradually make the circuit wet.

People who claim "It's not safe!" have no leg to stand on. With safety being paramount in the sport, the system would not be introduced in a way that could potentially cause an accident. The FIA would make sure of it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly just making up excuses in the hopes of dismissing the system straight away. People who claim that safety is an issue are 100% responsible for the deaths of any brain cells in readers who facepalm after reading their comments.

 

[Ardius]

I wouldn't say I'm running with it. In my mind, we're facing a hypotetical situation where the Powers That Be have said "One way or another, this is absolutely happening", and I'm trying to find a way that I think would make it work in a way that it might be accepted by teams and fans. So if it was absolutely going to happen, what would you prefer: a situation where each and every race was flooded at a pre-determined time and to a pre-determined extent, with all the infromation disclosed to the teams in advance ... or one where the circuit was randomly (for want of a better word) flooded at some point during the weekend to varying extents and degrees? You have to admit, my idea is much closer to a circuit being subjected to natural weather conditions.

Ah, but there would be no guarantee that it would rain at all. Like I said, the probability that the circuit would be flooded at some point during the weekend would randomly decided in advance. It could be anywhere between 0% and 100%, with the teams only finding out that percentage twenty minutes before it actually happens. So you can imagine, ten laps into a race, the teams getting a message like "there is a 36% chance that half the circuit will be flooded twenty minutes from now, with conditions akin to a moderate downpour" or "there is an 89% chance the entire circuit will be flooded twnty minutes from now, with conditions akin to a light shower", etc. and they have to react accordingly.

I'm not saying this is a perfect solution or that it will do anything, but one that I think would be better received than simply flooding the circuit for the last ten laps at every race.

What would I prefer? How about - never articially flooding circuits? Lets not even consider it in the first place because its totally unecessary? Its another Bernie idea to get media attention, so I don't see why it needs to be given credible discussion.

Like I said, I don't think you understand what they are saying here. They are not saying "randomly flood circuits", because quite clearly, this already happens at some tracks so its not needed. They are saying, introduce wet weather conditions at tracks that don't normally have them to "spice up" the race at what are normally boring circuits (Catalunya, Valencia, Abu Dhabi..etc). This totally ignores the original problem - the track.

I don't think any "solution" would be better recieved - why do we need this in the first place? We already have wet races, so its quite redundant unless you want to create more wet races at tracks that don't normally have them. Which like I said, is ignoring the actual problem which is not the weather.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What would I prefer? How about - never articially flooding circuits?

But that's not an option here. I'm working on the assumption that it will happen regardless of what anyone says or does, and that nothing can stop it. I find it easier to try and find a way to make it work if I assume it will happen. Your preference for it not happening is not an option. So, given the two - and only the two - choices, which woud you like more: a system of flooding the circuit at a pre-determined time at every event, or a system of randomising the conditions (and the potential for those conditions to happen) as much as possible?

 

[Ardius]

Neither, because it isn't going to happen and I refuse to discuss any further this idea. I've already explained why.

 

[Grand Prix]

I think Top Gear toyed around with the idea of sprinkling the test track for all the power laps, but didn't follow through as it would have been an expensive endeavour. Starting costs of installing the sprinkler system, and the huge water bill to pay afterwards.

I'm sure that on top of being robbed of profits by Bernie, the circuit owners would love to have to install sprinklers and have an additional bill cutting into their revenue.


Ain't gonna happen.

 

[daan]

So you've got everyone driving round on a dry track. Then it "rains". Everyone is expecting it, everyone pits and changes to wets, the first car in every team leads out the pits. The 2nd driver in the team, who had to queue behind his teammate, has lost out big style and is now stuck in a queue with all the other 2nd drivers. Pretty much status quo except that your 2nd driver has been screwed.

The other part is, you're going to need an even spread of water round the whole track. You can't have 3 corners soaking wet and the rest of the track scorching hot. If you stay on dries, you risk crashing at one of those 3 corners. If you change to wets, they'll be destroyed by the time you get to the wet bits. It would be a lottery with no skill involved.

The normal wet scenario is that no one knows when, or if, it is going to rain, how heavy it will be, or how long will it rain for. That's where the wet race excitement comes from. The races aren't exciting just because it rained. They are exciting because of the uncertainty the rain brings with it.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

My Grandad always used to say that they should have artificial wet races...

... but if it's a wet race that's needed, then why not just have a Scottish Grand Prix?

200 laps of Knockhill? Marvelous!