Grand Prix Rejects

Wallio wrote:They do this is NASCAR, a crew guy, who isn't even over the wall, extends a pole with a Gatorade cup into the car. The driver chugs it than throws it out the window as he leaves. Now admittedly, NASCAR pit-stops take about 10x as long, but with everything else teams do in the 2-4 seconds a car is stopped, they could easily do something like you suggest.

I think that such a system could fall foul of the regulations in F1 though - it seems to be a hangover from the 1980's and cheats such as the "water cooled brakes", but I believe that the regulations would prevent any fluids being transferred into either the car or the driver as soon as the race begins.

Wallio wrote:

Salamander wrote:

As for your other point, I simply disagree, there is no need. Again it was his decision. It was like "Crashgate". (Apples to oranges I understand) Was Renault wrong for ordering Junior to wreck? Of course, no question. But he did it, so he can't blame them. If he had been hurt, through his own actions, I'd feel no sympathy. Sorry, that's just the way I feel on it. Why hurt everyone over the dumb actions of a few?

Okay, no. Let me write this in big capital letters so you can understand my point exactly.

IF SOMEONE IS IN HOSPITAL FOR A PREVENTABLE REASON, ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PREVENT IT. PEOPLE IN HOSPITAL TAKE UP TIME AND RESOURCES. IF YOU CAN STOP SOMEONE BEING IN HOSPITAL BY TWEAKING ONE RULE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS, IT SHOULD BE DONE IN THE INTEREST OF EVERYONE.

Regardless of ANYTHING ELSE EVER, if you can stop someone going to hospital YOU SHOULD BLOODY DO IT.

I'm done here.

Ok let me understand (because clearly I don't). I am an adult. If I choose to run around with a machete and my shoes untied, people should go out of their way to stop me, because I could in theory, end up in the hospital? Surely not.

JEV is an adult. He made his bed, let him lie in it.

Its like the NFL concussion lawsuit. The players were grown men who knew the risks, many of them have said on the record they would do everything over again, but they should be entitled to millions of dollars because of it?

As an aside, I might be mistaken but one issue that was raised in the NFL concussion situation was that, in some instances, information may have been intentionally withheld from some players who might otherwise have refused to play. It is one thing to make an informed choice in light of all the facts and another when the choice is made based on intentionally misleading information.

Wallio wrote:They do this is NASCAR, a crew guy, who isn't even over the wall, extends a pole with a Gatorade cup into the car. The driver chugs it than throws it out the window as he leaves. Now admittedly, NASCAR pit-stops take about 10x as long, but with everything else teams do in the 2-4 seconds a car is stopped, they could easily do something like you suggest.

It's pointless anyway, since the driver would now be X grams heavier with the water on board. There are no possible ways to give a driver a drink in a pitstop within three seconds, unless you can pause time.

Please, for the love of Nick Heidfeld, stop using NASCAR as an example. Using NASCAR ideas in F1 is like trying to perform open heart surgery with a battleaxe and a clawhammer.

Wallio wrote:Ok let me understand (because clearly I don't). I am an adult. If I choose to run around with a machete and my shoes untied, people should go out of their way to stop me, because I could in theory, end up in the hospital? Surely not.

Firstly, your example has little relation to the issue being discussed. Vergne's decision was made in a rational context, to improve performance, in light of the current circumstances. Running around with untied shoes and a machete is, unless malicious intent is present, an entirely irrational decision.

Secondly, even assuming that running around with untied shoes and a machete was a rational, conscious choice, the party doing so should be stopped, as said individual not only poses a severe safety hazard to him or herself, but also to other individuals present.

Ataxia wrote:

Wallio wrote:They do this is NASCAR, a crew guy, who isn't even over the wall, extends a pole with a Gatorade cup into the car. The driver chugs it than throws it out the window as he leaves. Now admittedly, NASCAR pit-stops take about 10x as long, but with everything else teams do in the 2-4 seconds a car is stopped, they could easily do something like you suggest.

It's pointless anyway, since the driver would now be X grams heavier with the water on board. There are no possible ways to give a driver a drink in a pitstop within three seconds, unless you can pause time.

Please, for the love of Nick Heidfeld, stop using NASCAR as an example. Using NASCAR ideas in F1 is like trying to perform open heart surgery with a battleaxe and a clawhammer.

Why? Racing is racing. Ok How about Indycar? They do something similar there too.

mario wrote:As an aside, I might be mistaken but one issue that was raised in the NFL concussion situation was that, in some instances, information may have been intentionally withheld from some players who might otherwise have refused to play. It is one thing to make an informed choice in light of all the facts and another when the choice is made based on intentionally misleading information.

The evidence of that is shakey at best. And for every player in the suit claiming they didn't know, there's one from the same era saying they did (Jim McMahon, Brett Farve).

Wallio wrote:

Ataxia wrote:

Wallio wrote:They do this is NASCAR, a crew guy, who isn't even over the wall, extends a pole with a Gatorade cup into the car. The driver chugs it than throws it out the window as he leaves. Now admittedly, NASCAR pit-stops take about 10x as long, but with everything else teams do in the 2-4 seconds a car is stopped, they could easily do something like you suggest.

It's pointless anyway, since the driver would now be X grams heavier with the water on board. There are no possible ways to give a driver a drink in a pitstop within three seconds, unless you can pause time.

Please, for the love of Nick Heidfeld, stop using NASCAR as an example. Using NASCAR ideas in F1 is like trying to perform open heart surgery with a battleaxe and a clawhammer.

Why? Racing is racing. Ok How about Indycar? They do something similar there too.

In the case of NASCAR, the car and the structure of the races themselves are so fundamentally different in conception that the comparison is of questionable value - it'd be like, say, comparing the design of a GT car to a Formula 3 car when the two are ultimately designed around completely different rulebooks and to very different purposes.

Overall, I am a little concerned that the tone of this thread is becoming somewhat acrimonious now - I can appreciate that this is a somewhat emotive issue, but I do hope that things do not get too heated.

mario wrote:
Overall, I am a little concerned that the tone of this thread is becoming somewhat acrimonious now - I can appreciate that this is a somewhat emotive issue, but I do hope that things do not get too heated.

I'm not upset about this ,and I hope no one else is, but it seems to me those with a different opinion just like to discredit opposition. As I said, this happens in racing quite a bit (I'd dare say 2-4 times a year) across all forms of racing, but if the drivers are ok with it........

That being said, I doubt any of us will change each others minds.

Wallio wrote:

mario wrote:
Overall, I am a little concerned that the tone of this thread is becoming somewhat acrimonious now - I can appreciate that this is a somewhat emotive issue, but I do hope that things do not get too heated.

I'm not upset about this ,and I hope no one else is, but it seems to me those with a different opinion just like to discredit opposition. As I said, this happens in racing quite a bit (I'd dare say 2-4 times a year) across all forms of racing, but if the drivers are ok with it........

That being said, I doubt any of us will change each others minds.

Well, so long as the tone remains respectful of the opinions of others I have no objections - as you say, inevitably opinions are going to differ on this point and viewpoints are unlikely to shift significantly.

My 2 cents on the whole matter is to compare it to general workplace pressures (here me out here).

I used to work pretty long hours in my old job to the extent that I was getting very stressed, potentially unhealthy and my relationships were also being squeezed (also the reason for being away from these forums for a very long time). Now, it was very rare, if ever, that I was directly told/ordered to work overtime to get things done. In a sense it was my choice to work the hours that I did. However, it wasn't because I was masochistic, rather there was a general unspoken pressure to do so. It was never said, but you were seen to be behind or less hard working than your colleagues then that had its repercussions.

Now what I'm saying here is that I understand people might think its my own fault for getting into that situation and that I should have just stood up to the culture as I was fully entitled to do. On the other hand, I would hope some people would sympathise that although not being ordered I was pressured into making decisions I didn't want to make.

I suspect that same might have been the case for Vergne. JEV probably wanted a water bottle but because everyone else was forgoing one he felt the need to do so to. In a way, he was forced to do so by other people's actions, so there should be a little sympathy there.

It's a classic case of peer pressure: Who is more foolish? The fool or the fool that follows him? I would actually tend to agree with Salamander that a water bottle mandate would be a good idea simply in order to stop things getting out of hand. Who knows what would come next, super-lightweight flimsy seat belts or helmets? The FIA have a responsibility for the health & safety of the drivers and in fact make a very big thing of stuff like road safety so its really in their interests to look into this.

The bottom line is that sometimes you can't trust people to make sensible decisions when there is a lot of pressure around them. I don't see how preventing the silly option from being taken is a bad thing. I hope this is all in some way coherent!

It's like they said in the 1 film that I watched recently:

If you show a racing driver two cars, one that is highly dangerous but two seconds a lap quicker than the safe car, 99% of drivers will take the quicker car.

That's why regulations are in place, to protect the drivers...not just from their teams that may make bad decisions, but also from their own competitiveness that regularly outweighs their own self-preservation instincts.

AustralianStig wrote:
That's why regulations are in place, to protect the drivers...not just from their teams that may make bad decisions, but also from their own competitiveness that regularly outweighs their own self-preservation instincts.

You've said what I was trying to say but in a far less rambling way!

I'm going to give my thoughts from the perspective of a sport I know very well: gymnastics.

Gymnasts need to be small and light. Although it's a very inclusive sport, those who don't fit the bill in terms of body type are very unlikely to make it past a certain level.

However in the 80's and early 90's especially, this went way too far. Many gymnasts were underweight, eating disorders were rife and coaches put pressure on the gymnasts to not eat or drink enough. Poor nutrition led to a big increase in injuries and there was widespread concern for gymnasts' welfare.

The sports governing body took a clever approach: rather than implementing rules on welfare and nutrition that unscrupulous coaches wouldn't follow anyway, they made changes to the sport that placed the bias on gymnast strength rather than flexibility. The vault was made bigger, and the judging code was altered to favour strength based moves.

Nowadays gymnasts tend to be older, stronger, and slightly heavier built than their 80's counterparts. You can't produce a champion gymnast now without feeding them properly.

So I am really surprised that F1 seems to have taken a big step backwards in terms of safeguarding driver's health. I know they are older than gymnasts, but they still feel the same pressures and let's face it, drivers are getting younger and probably don't have the confidence to say no to something harmful for fear of losing their drive. It's why NPJ got himself into the mess he did with crashgate, and why JEV has made himself ill now.

I can't remember who it was (Panis maybe?) who had his fluid supply fail at Interlagos early in the race on a very hot day, and was very unwell afterwards. It shows how vital fluid intake is, especially when racing in hot conditions which they do a lot.

Gary Hartstein goes as far to infer that any team doctor that encourages this practice is negligent, and I'd be inclined to agree.

I also keep reading worrysome reports about drivers dieting to get rid of muscle mass with the goal to lose weight for the sake of the car.

Having been a rather slim kid myself and not one of the strongest by any means, back in my school days, I suffered a dizzy spell which also impacted my vision momentarily, due to temporary hypoglycemia during a particularly exhausting sports courses. Thus, I had to sit out the rest of the lesson whilst slowly eating my sandwich because I just had not eaten enough earlier that day: belly full in the morning after breakfast, no time to eat during the 1st break nor the 2nd break ahead of the sports course. In total, I went through this situation 3 times in 3 different school years.

Hence, I know this extreme dieting is dangerous for racing drivers. I wish they would stop that and go back to eating normally.Wasn't it David Coulthard who confessed that he had suffered from anorexia during the early part of his career?

This extreme dieting has to be an early nominee for this website's very own Reject Of the Year Award for 2014.

Yannick wrote:Wasn't it David Coulthard who confessed that he had suffered from anorexia during the early part of his career

I thought DC was bulimic is his teenage years IIRC.

Sutil went without food for two days earlier this year

It's completely unacceptable that the FIA haven't done anything regarding this.

East Londoner wrote:Sutil went without food for two days earlier this year

It's completely unacceptable that the FIA haven't done anything regarding this.

Well, aside from the fact that that proves Sutil is an imbecile (starving yourself only works for losing weight if you do it continiously), I do not really consider that an issue as much as the hydration issue. In the end, that's all that needs to be solved, so we don't have drivers heading to the hospital. Sauber do not need a bail-out for their screw-up.

East Londoner wrote:Sutil went without food for two days earlier this year

It's completely unacceptable that the FIA haven't done anything regarding this.

And it is unlikely that anything will be done unless something forces the FIA to act given Todt's indifference to the drivers.

Mind you, at the moment it seems that quite a few teams would resist such a move as well - right now, it seems that some teams think it is easier to force the drivers to cut their weight rather than the designers cutting the weight of the car. Sutil's comments seem to suggest that Sauber, despite bringing in a substantially lighter car (the rumours are that they've cut 15kg off the weight of the car) are still over the weight limit, suggesting they must have badly overshot the weight limit to be in such a difficult position.

East Londoner wrote:Sutil went without food for two days earlier this year

It's completely unacceptable that the FIA haven't done anything regarding this.

Drivers should not be punished for their height.

East Londoner wrote:Sutil went without food for two days earlier this year
It's completely unacceptable that the FIA haven't done anything regarding this.

Like what? Issue Sutil a reprimand for being an idiot? How brainless do you have to be to 'try' to eat nothing for two days (because thats what he actually says) and in the same interview point out "I still believe we are in an area thats safe". You can't legislate for stupidity.

Sauber are placing their hopes on revised engine software, which is expected to squeeze more out of the Ferrari V6, and a lightweight version of the C33 chassis that has pared off 15 kg.

Hopefully this will stop this non-sense.

I like to suspect NASCAR has a solution that dated to 2001 when Michael Waltrip and Jimmy Spencer had to race against the late Jason Leffler who weighed around 59 kg. Spencer and Waltrip both weigh over 100 kg with Spencer being a rather plump fellow to the point some believe he may have been the heaviest racing driver of all time. That would be weighing the cars for minimum weight with the driver inside the car and the car full of fuel and fluids. And to weight the car without driver. As of right now, the split between driver and no driver weight for the cars is 175 lbs or 79 kg.