The rule that ruins a race

News

Which is worse? A driver running out of fuel on track because the pitlane is closed and he is unable to refuel, or refueling while the pitlane is officially closed and incurring a penalty. Either way, that driver's race is ruined and we ask the question - is this fair?

We saw again at the Spanish Grand Prix a race ruined by the new safety car rules introduced at the start of last season. The revised rules mean that while the safety car (SC) is being deployed, the pit lane is closed to stop drivers speeding past an incident to try and pit while the safety car is on track, gaining a net advantage while the field is compressed. Drivers may not enter the pit lane until given the OK by race control, and if they do so when the lane is ‘closed’ they will incur a ten second stop-go penalty.

The reason given for this was safety concerns – despite the fact that to date there has not been an incident occurring which would prompt this measure being introduced. What there have been, are several races ruined because at the time the SC was deployed, individual drivers needed to pit for fuel – as per their strategy.

During the Spanish GP it was BMW-Sauber driver Nick Heidfeld who had his race compromised in this fashion. After the crash of McLaren’s Heikki Kovalainen, the SC picked up the lead driver who was at the time, Heidfeld. The German driver still had three laps of fuel left in his car, and had just passed the pit entry when he was notified that the safety car was deployed, thus rendering it too late for him to pit on that lap while the lane was still ‘open’. It soon became clear that we were in for a relatively long stint behind the safety car and as Heidfeld would have run out of fuel, he had no choice but to refuel when the pit lane was still officially closed, thus incurring a ten second stop-go penalty. This meant that Heidfeld was dropped back in the pack from fifth place (where he had rejoined after his stop) to dead last. A stellar effort from Heidfeld saw him eventually finish ninth, just out of the points.

At the end of the race Heidfeld was in ninth place, and finished 63.1 seconds behind eventual winner, Kimi Raikkonen. Without the approximately thirty seconds lost from the stop-go penalty, hypothetically Heidfeld should have been able to finish in 5th place, and thus obtain four points. At the start of the race Heidfeld was only three points behind Championship leader Raikkonen, but the nett result of the penalty was that he now lies in 5th place with sixteen points to his name. Had Heidfeld scored during this race he would still be trailing Raikkonen, but only by nine points, instead of thirteen. At the end of the season, those four points could make a huge difference – just ask Fernando Alonso.

Alonso was caught out in exactly the same situation in Canada last year. The nett result of that stop-go penalty saw Alonso finish in 7th place, only obtaining two points. Had he not lost around twenty seconds completing the penalty, hypothetically he would have finished the race in second position, thus garnering an extra six championship points. At the season closer in Brazil, Alonso lost out winning the World Drivers Championship title to Raikkonen by one point. So in that case, not only was a race ruined but it cost a driver a potential World Championship victory as well.

Of course the SC deployment will play havoc with race strategies. It is impossible to predict when or even if one will be deployed, and the SC sometimes will even work in the favour of a driver if he manages to be in the pit lane at exactly the right time.

That is just how the cookie crumbles in F1. You win some, you lose some. But these rules actively penalise a driver for his strategy – which in most cases are devised before the race even starts and allow little room for adjustment.

Should a driver be forced to stop on track – thus generating another SC period – and incur the wrath of his team and the ridicule of the fans because he ran out of fuel? And should he be penalised for taking his refuelling stop at the pre-planned time, simply because the SC was out on track?

I think not.

The potential problems with this rule were pointed out by many people before the 2007 season started. Nevertheless, the rule was added to the weighty tome that is the F1 rulebook, and enforced rigorously.

Races – and Driver Championships – should be won out on the track, by competitive wheel to wheel racing. Not because of some questionable rule that the FIA has dreamt up in response to a situation that has never actually happened.

There have been many compromise solutions to the problem offered including race control activating a speed limiter on all the cars when the SC is deployed, a speed limit in place to make your way back to the pits when the race is yellow flagged, ban refuelling altogether, or drivers only given a penalty if they pitted under SC unnecessarily. All those suggestions have merit, but also have failings. Furthermore they will add even more complex rulings and confusion to the rulebook which already struggles under its vast weight.

The only short term solution is to add this rule to the scrap heap, where it belongs.

A couple of thoughts

Nice article Wendi. I do think there is a point that everyone is missing: If we just scrap the pit closure rule then drivers like Heidfeld could benefit from a SC period, which is wrong. Because cars have to slow down under SC conditions when a driver then pits the other cars on the track aren't going as fast. This will allow the car in the pits to effectively have a shorter stop. This is why Heidfeld came out in front of Alonso at Spain after the pits. In my mind there is no question that he should be penalised for that.

Interestingly Heidfeld himself wants the rule scrapped. He says "luck or bad luck should not play a role in F1".

From someone who I thought was intelligent that is perhaps the most stupid thing I've ever heard. Luck plays a role in every walk of life, especially sport. If luck played no role in a GP weekend we'd have a procession every race. Engine blows, rain, etc etc .... all luck.

By the way I think Dan Brunell's suggestion was the best. Don't ban pitstops but don't set any silly constraints like the tyre stuff. Strategy is a part of F1 -- but strategy isn't really strategy when all teams do exactly the same thing ....

The theory behid this stupid

The theory behid this stupid rule was that it would stop drivers racing to the pits when the safety car was deployed. Ironically what is quite clear from the situation Heidfeld found himself in is that the best thing he could have done is raced back to the pits while the safety car was deployed and tha way he would have been further up the queue at the re-start. His penalty stop would have taken the same time but the positions he would have gained by racing to the pits would have cut his race time. Given the field spread at Barcelona every position he 'gained' by pitting early would probably have cut a couple of seconds from his race time.

In a situation where a few drivers had to pit in similar circumstances the first to pit would gain a significant advantage over the last to pit so racing to the pits as soon as the safety car is deployed is still the correct tactic.

heidfeld

I quite like the way NASCAR handles that question: the pit-lane remains open, but the team is only aloud to fuel the car up for a couple of laps - meaning - the driver will have to come back in to then change tires and refuel. Fact is, there will not be a perfect solution to this something will have to give.

Follow the IRL rule

I like what the IRL does: Allow drivers running out of fuel to enter a closed pit only for a quick splash of fuel. No tires or other service are allowed. Once the pits open, any driver who pitted for a splash of fuel under a closed pit must re-enter the pits for regular service.

solution is trivial

each team records their pit strategy as far as which laps they intend to pit for fuel.
these intentions are sealed in an envelope. should a team pit when the pits are 'closed,' race officials simply open the envelope, if the team is pitting as planned, no penalty. if a team pits as planned, logically their second pit will also come as planned. if a team pits early due to a SC when the pits are open (in order to attempt to gain an advantage) they forfeit their subsequent envelopes for fuel stops, in other words, from then on they must obey the pit closures or pay the penalty. obviously their later stops would come at different times than recorded anyway.

the teams' strategies are safe since they remain sealed until after their confidence matters. the teams would not be *required* to stop as recorded in their envelopes so if some kind of gamesmanship is desired it is not eliminated. so they could start the race on a two stop, and change to a one stop without penalty (or vice versa.)

but if they want to stop with the pits closed, it has to be scheduled. which is precisely what the complaints of the OP are above.