Artificial Wet Races

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pupik
  • 64 comments
  • 10,353 views
Neither, because it isn't going to happen and I refuse to discuss any further this idea. I've already explained why.
*headdeskfacepalm*

I'm sorry, but now you're just being painful. You're one of those people who has simply said "It's a bad idea" and left it in that. I doubt you've given it any more consideration than the moment it took you to dismiss it. Which is a shame, because I actually thought more of you. I figured you were one of those people who might actually be able to come up with an idea to make the concept feasible. But no, you just shut it down from the beginning. Tell me, did you at least dislike the idea based on its merits, or did you disagree with it because Bernie Ecclestone is the one who suggested it?
 
Perhaps if Bernie wasn't such a greedy 🤬 and put races where they should be rather than in the middle of the desert because some sheik has got Billions of dollars then maybe we'd see a lot more natural rain!
 
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.

So you can do 100mph around corners using the non racing line, but only 70mph on the racing line, and you still think the shortest line is the fastest?
It would be made so it would be about equal in lap times whichever lines you take.
It would also take into account rubbering in and marbles.
 
So you can do 100mph around corners using the non racing line, but only 70mph on the racing line, and you still think the shortest line is the fastest?
The racing line is the fastest line. The shortest line through a corner is the fastest way through it. Anything other than this beaks the laws of physics.
 
*headdeskfacepalm*

I'm sorry, but now you're just being painful. You're one of those people who has simply said "It's a bad idea" and left it in that. I doubt you've given it any more consideration than the moment it took you to dismiss it. Which is a shame, because I actually thought more of you. I figured you were one of those people who might actually be able to come up with an idea to make the concept feasible. But no, you just shut it down from the beginning. Tell me, did you at least dislike the idea based on its merits, or did you disagree with it because Bernie Ecclestone is the one who suggested it?

You completely mis-interpret how I feel about the idea and Bernie. It doesn't matter who suggested it, I have no hard feelings particularly against Bernie Ecclestone, in fact in this very thread I pointed out that I don't think he particularly believes its a good idea and that he is most probably throwing out statements to jump the press as usual.
Of course I thought about it, problem is, it doesn't require much thought to recognise that not only is it rediculously "artificial" but its completely impractical. How many circuits are going to pay for this system? And what happens when it actually rains? Looks a bit silly now doesn't it? So the only circuits who are going to be interested in paying for this are ones that don't normally get rain...seeing as those circuits are places like Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, I think they have bigger issues with their circuit design than worrying about the lack of variable weather.

Not to mention the various safety and sporting concerns already raised in this thread.

My other issue is that you constantly, no matter the subject, always jump to the "devil's advocate" position and try to coax discussion and debate. I've already raised this with you before but you choose to ignore me and continue. Fine, but I don't particularly feel there is much discussion to be had here as the original idea doesn't have much credibility worth discussing. We may as well be talking about "what if Ferrari didn't exist" and its effects on the championship.
Heh, amusing, not only are we discussing the use of artificial methods in racing, but artificial methods of forum discussion. How apt.
 
Last edited:
The racing line is the fastest line. The shortest line through a corner is the fastest way through it. Anything other than this beaks the laws of physics.
Maybe you didn't read my original post. The shortest/racing line would have low grip tarmac, the other line/s would have ultra high grip tarmac, the car would be able to carry significantly more speed under load around the high grip corner than the low grip corner.
Why do you think cars take the different line in wet races? Because it has higher grip. Using your logic they should always take the shortest route even though it's slippery and in fact slower...
It seems some people don't read posts properly.
 
I just read this on GPUpdate and all I got to say was... Bernie has cracked it. :dunce:
Seriously, thank goodness the FIA never let his crazy ideas get into F1. I can't image what F1 would be he ran everything to his liking... :sick:
 
Kind of seems silly when you could just re-shuffle the calendar for this affect. Considering the calendar is currently organised for the races to be during the summer of each global location it shouldn't be too difficult.
 
I remember seeing people on various other sites joking about this idea since the pre-season build up last February. Watching an F1 race where a sprinkler system activates at random to create wet racing conditions just doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Better off letting nature decide on what weather conditions occur during F1 races.
 
Top gear attempted this on their test track for the first series however it completely failed for many reasons. Bumps in the track cause water to run away from certain places, the amount of water needed it astronomical and on circuits where this may be implemented (hot ones) the water will evaporate in no time atally. On a hot track in uk summer it only takes about 30 mins for the track to be completely dry after being soaking wet so keeping the track wet for any period of time in even hotter climates would be near on impossible.
 
In all honesty, I hate this idea. It just seems way too fake. We got plenty of rain in the 2010 season, why do we need more? The only way I can see this happening is if F1 did an indoor race. Now that would be cool. :D
 
I am in favor of the idea as one to be tried.

It is well known that driver ability is more of a factor under adverse weather conditions such as rain.

It is also well known that it takes less physical strength to race in the rain.

If each race in the season could be depended upon to be wet, that would set the stage for:
- recovering drivers such as Kubica.
- female drivers - name your favorite.
- older drivers with experience and skill - again, name your favorite.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
I am in favor of the idea as one to be tried.

It is well known that driver ability is more of a factor under adverse weather conditions such as rain.

It is also well known that it takes less physical strength to race in the rain.

If each race in the season could be depended upon to be wet, that would set the stage for:
- recovering drivers such as Kubica.
- female drivers - name your favorite.
- older drivers with experience and skill - again, name your favorite.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

Racing has also a lot of mental strength thrown into the mix. It may not be physically demanding to race in the rain, but with the reduced visibility due to rooster tails, lack of grip, and inevitable hydroplaning, makes you much more cautious, which does really put a strain on your mind, which in turn can take its toll physically on the body.
 
Don't tell the teams until the last minute, but show the viewers before the race begins.

In the information age, do you really think information like that could be made public without any team insiders finding out?

blaaah
It seems some people don't read posts properly.

I know the feeling. Several times since I registered for gtplanet, I've had people quote me, then try to argue the point I was already making as If i'd said something else entirely. Rather than start an arguement, I just ignore them.

I do actually agree with your "less grip tarmac" theory. Whilst I'm not a big fan of the idea, it seems people haven't understood what you've been saying.

Whilst the laws of physics dictate that the fastest route between two points is a straight line, if there is more grip off line, it may be quicker. In this instance, it doesn't break the law of physics, as this particular law doesn't take the surface conditions into account.

For those having a hard time understanding what blaaah is saying, perhaps the following example will help.
It's the middle of winter and you want to go to the other side of town. The lake in the centre of town is frozen, walking around the lake is longer as the crow flies, but due to the slippy ice surface, it would take longer to walk in a straight line accross the lake. The same could apply to a race track with high grip off the ideal racing line, but next to no grip on the actual line at all.

I don't like the idea of a sprinkler system. It would just make the racing artificial. I think this is just one of Bernie's crazy ideas. Anyone remember the "three shortcuts per driver" proposition? The bulk of the problems lie with the design regulations of the cars and the circuits themselves.

A wet weather race is generally a lot more exciting than a dry weather race. Let's just hope we have a few wet Grand Prix' this season.
 
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

Without having read any replies....

I don't like fakeness in my motorsports. If we're going to be fake about it, we might just as well start having scripted, computer-generated races from now on. Then they can be every bit as exciting as we want.
 
A problem with this idea is that it could create bias in races. Whoever would be in control of the sprinkler system made decide to open the artificial heavens if a driver they don't like is leading to try and give more preferred drivers an advantage.
 
A problem with this idea is that it could create bias in races. Whoever would be in control of the sprinkler system made decide to open the artificial heavens if a driver they don't like is leading to try and give more preferred drivers an advantage.

It would be pretty easy to determine the rain spells well in advance of the race...

I think it will never the see the light of day, but I agree that it's an idea atleast worth some consideration, and it could be made to work... but the question is, would it just be a monumental waste of time or just plain gimmickry?

That said, I can also see Bernie Ecclestone becoming like Christof in the Truman Show... :sick:
 
In the information age, do you really think information like that could be made public without any team insiders finding out?
Yes. Randomised rain patterns would be controlled by a computer on a closed circuit accessible only to race control.
 
Bernie Ecclestone's artificial rain plan is brilliant - it just doesn't go far enough.

If it isn’t the envy any platform shoed, acrylic-haired billionaire inevitably arouses, I suppose it must be the traditional curse suffered by anyone light years ahead of his time. Van Gogh sold only one painting, and as innovative as Vincent was with palette and brush, Little Bern is more so when it comes to tweaking the rules of Grand Prix racing.

Every year he unveils a fresh idea to improve his sport. This time, in succession to last year’s proposal of the “short cut”, he proposes “artificial rain” (in English, water) sprayed from sprinklers for 10 laps in the middle or at the end of a race.

Nothing but sneering greets this brainwave, but he is absolutely right. F1 races only come alive when the cars are aquaplaning through the air and the drivers in grave peril of death. Yet incalculably brilliant as “artificial rain” obviously is, it doesn’t go nearly far enough. And so, asking nothing in return, I offer this easy-to- follow, seven point plan for the salvation of Formula One.

SUNDAY DRIVERS
Every 20th lap, a fleet of 24 Morris Minor 1000s, each driven at no more than 13mph by pipe-smoking nonagenarians of the sort who make the outskirts of Bath such a weekend motoring joy, will join the race in a figure of eight formation. Any driver who attempts to overtake this formation will suffer a time penalty of 20 minutes behind the Safety Caravan, as occupied by Margaret Beckett and her husband Leo.

POT HOLES
Whenever a Toro Rosso, McClaren or BMW is leading, a circular gap in the tarmac, with a radius of no less than 4.5 metres, will be created on the blind side of the next chicane by a controlled detonation.

PENALTY NOTICES
If any pit stop for new tyres and/or refuelling extends beyond 6.2 seconds, the team traffic warden will affix a parking ticket to the windscreen. The driver may not leave the pit lane until he has rung a call centre and paid the fine by credit or debit card. Diners Club will not be acceptable.

CIVIL WAR
If the Bahrain Grand Prix does take place, as Mr Ecclestone boldly predicted yesterday, it will be followed seven days later by the inaugural Libyan GP. Held on the streets of central Tripoli, this will conclude after 75 laps or when 18 drivers have been wounded by rebel gunfire. In accordance with Mr Ecclestone’s stated preference for dictatorship over democracy, drivers tear-gassed by troops loyal to Colonel Gaddafi will be deducted 50 per cent of any championship points previously won.

PROFESSOR PAT PENDING
The mad scientist from Wacky Races will join each race on lap 22, with his Convert-A-Car 3 transformed at two lap intervals into the following: a bouncy castle, a scimitar the height of Nelson’s column, Mount Rushmore, and a giant, glowing ball of weapons grade plutonium. Penelope Pitstop may also race, although only the wrong way round the track and in a Sauber. She may not use her Compact Pussycat 5, the retractable lipstick device failing to conform to current specifications.

TEMPORARY BLINDNESS
Between laps 25-33, drivers who started from an odd position on the grid (pole, third, etc) will be rendered sightless by a film of treacle caused to dribble down their helmets by remote control, and solidified by a blast of liquid nitrogen from a canister sited within the steering wheel. Unsighted drivers may take team guidance over their radios, but any instructions as to steering must be given in ancient Etruscan.

SNAKES
Every tenth lap, a king cobra will be released from a box beneath the gearbox, by remote control, into the cockpits of drivers who began from an even number on the grid. Drivers may deploy a mongoose as co-driver if it is registered in accordance with existing FIA guidelines. During a period of artificial rain, however, the cobra will be joined by a puff adder, and this will be known as SNAKES ON AN AQUAPLANE.
I bet you stopped reading after the article title, huh?
 
Unsighted drivers may take team guidance over their radios, but any instructions as to steering must be given in ancient Etruscan.

That may be the best sentence I've ever read.

Nice find. 👍
 
Yes. Randomised rain patterns would be controlled by a computer on a closed circuit accessible only to race control.

But didn't you suggest that the viewers at home (and possibly at the circuit) would be made aware before the start of the race when the sprinklers would be turned on? If so, the teams could easily find this out as well. All it would take is one text/email/whatever. It couldn't be made public but remain a secret at the track.
 
I never said that it was perfect.

I think the idea in general is a bad one. Not for reasons of safety or secrecy, but it would make a mockery of F1 IMO. I have no reason to believe that if it were to be put in place, it would be used indescriminately. Charlie Whiting may (or may not)have a personal bias, but he is 100% professional in his work and doesn't let his own personal bias affect his work.

That said, the idea is still a bad one. I liked the article you posted with the "wacky races" type ideas though.
 
It's just too contrived. I think the races are exciting enough as is... I mean hasn't the championship been decided in the last race and virtually the last lap 2 out of the past 3 seasons?

I'd like to see more passing but I think sprinkling water on the track in an arbitrary manner is the wrong way to go. I think ensuring "soft" tires cannot possibly last the whole race or near to it would help a lot. There needs to be a serious difference in the grip and durability of hard vs. soft. And figuring out a way to get the cars to run closer together probably would help too. Easier said than done, though.
 
I would love to see it tested at one race then I could make my judgment on it, I have to say it sounds like a reasonable idea even though its motor racing blasphemy! I tend to be disappointed these days if its not going to rain for a race am I sure there are others who feel the same. A dry race coupled with a boring track (cough Valencia cough) is a real turn off. But there are some tracks which don't need extra drama anyway.

The problem is at what point does the sport turn into Mario Kart! Will you will get power ups like KERS enabled if you drive over a special mat? :lol: Hell why don't they turn off the Singapore GP track lights for a few seconds randomly and see if it get exciting...

Robin.
 
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

I actually think it is a good idea, but if they are going to do this they need to go one step further and have all tracks indoors so mother nature doesn't intervene :crazy:

(sarcasm intended)
 
Yeah, what happens if it's supposed to be a dry race and it rains? What if it rains during a wet race?
 
Artificial rain because too many desert tracks, Bernie!

Jeez Bernie; why not artificial snow and put winter tyres on the F1 cars!

Talk to the Chinese Bernie; apparently they have been experimenting with creating rain with cloud seeding and other weather control experiments!

Or every once in a while throw marbles on the track!

Please Bernie, visit your doctor and get checked out for Alzeimers, or Dementia symptoms!
 
Last edited:
Back