About that Safety Car Pitstop by Button
As Christine pointed out in her F1 Digest show earlier, during yesterday’s race in Canada, Jenson Button entered the pit lane whilst it was closed under safety car conditions, and then exited without receiving a penalty.
Despite much due-diligence I’ve yet to find a single explanation for this anywhere. However, I have a vague idea that Button’s stop may have been a stroke of genius on Honda’s part, or at least, they may have found a way of exploiting a loophole in the regulations.
Retracing the Steps
Let’s take a quick look at the early part of Jenson Button’s Canadian Grand Prix.
- Jenson starts the race on the soft tyre, which for todays race is the prime choice
- On lap 17, as a result of Sutil’s accident the safety car is deployed
- Jenson enters the pits on lap 17 while the pitlane is closed
- Honda mechanics remove the tyres and replace them with the super-soft compound (this is the option tyre and thus fulfills the requirement to run both types of rubber during the race)
- Jenson exits the pitlane under a green light, as the safety car is elsewhere on track (along with the rest of the pack)
- Jenson eventually catches up with the back of the slow moving queue
- Pit lane opens on lap 19 (only possible after all cars are lined up behind the safety car)
- Button pits again along with other drivers, this time swapping back to the preferred soft compound and additionally taking on fuel
After all of these events have played out, Jenson can happily spend the rest of the race running the better of the two tyres. He took his pitstop along with everybody else and effectively lost nothing.
Cooking the Books
I should add at this point, I’m filling in some gaps that the TV cameras couldn’t confirm (given that they had other pitlane dramas to focus on), but I’m reasonably confident that’s how things played out.
So, assuming the above is correct, how did the guy avoid being penalised? Well, this is what article 40.6 of the 2008 Sporting Regulations states:
From the time at which the “SAFETY CAR DEPLOYED” message is displayed no car may enter the pit lane for the purpose of refuelling until all cars on the track have formed up in a line behind the safety car and the message “PIT LANE OPEN” is shown on the timing monitors.
I added the emphasis, but note that there’s nothing in that sentence relating to the changing of tyres.
In the Spirit of the Regulations
Have Honda found a loophole in the regulations that avoids running a troublesome tyre? Is this Ross Brawn doing the very thing he does best? Did any other teams notice, and will there be any alterations made to the regulations to prevent this in the future?
I would also raise the question of how fast Jenson traveled when catching up with the rest of the pack? We know that the pitlane is closed to discourage speeding while dangers may be present on track, but this new approach makes that principle irrelevant.
There is an argument to say that even if there is a loophole, it didn’t do the Englishman a great deal of good, as he still finished third from last. However, in a faster car and specifically a faster car that can only deal with a single type of tyre, this could offer huge gains to anyone willing to take the gamble.
I may be wrong of course. In yesterday’s case, Jenson’s rubber could’ve been shredded. He simply may have had to pit regardless.
Incidentally, I’m assuming that this is the reason the regulations specifically mention fuel and not anything else, allowing cars who may be suffering damage from whatever brought out the safety car in the first place, a chance of repair.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:06 amRollin said:
That is the explanation the U.S. broadcasters gave as they were changing his tires.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:38 amDave Monks said:
Incredible. I’ve just watched the race and your conclusions re: sneaky Ross Brawn were exactly what I was thinking. If a team can’t get their car working on one set of tyres this is way to chance a ‘free’ pitstop. As soon as refueling is done away with, this will be no problem at all though.
And bring back qually spec cars, engines and tyres. Let’s see the big boys dance!
June 9th, 2008 at 8:26 amLadySnowcat said:
This may only be a one race advantage guys…
I think that the safety car procedure they trial at Magny Cours may mean this is irrelevant going forward…. which is why Ross didn’t mind using it in a pretty impossible position in this race and giving the game away….
June 9th, 2008 at 8:37 amRich said:
Thanks Christine, for researching this - somehow it makes Jenson’s race look even more of a disaster, hopefully he will bounce back - since Jenson had the second slowest fastest lap (not surprising was Sutil being slowest) of the race.
I think the regulations
should be changed but cannot get my wording right but something like and “for a non-puncture tyre change” or “for changing more than two tyres”!
This still gives the team a chance to repair a car to get it back onto the track.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:14 amChristine said:
It’s the kind of thing that you can benefit from if you’re running at the back, as Jenson was, where you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I can’t imagine the front runners doing a similar thing and encouraging an extra pit stop.
Still, it makes you want to bow down in respect to the Brawn brain, doesn’t it?
June 9th, 2008 at 9:20 amRich said:
Absolutely - Honda is already reaping some rewards from hiring Brawn - I do hope Honda keep both drivers and together they build up a winning team in the not too distant future.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:36 amRich said:
While no doubt exciting this adds expense which in turn favours those teams with a bigger budget.
However, the regulations to reduce costs the FIA have introduced can have the exact opposite - e.g. the gearbox - after it has completed its service life no parts are recoverable, whereas if you can change the gearbox you can recover more parts to re-use. STR has stated this rule adds to their costs. I actually think the absence of a spare car might actually favour the big teams (with more spares available and possibly a bigger cadet of mechanics) - so I was really impressed that STR got both damaged cars ready for the race.
For Christine and Me - why not summarise (as only Christine can) an article of regulations to reduce costs in F1 for this year and get comments back (with their suggestions) - then do a follow up posting on suggested future regulations for cost reduction?
June 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pmAC said:
I pretty certain this “loophole” had already been exploited in races past by some teams.
Thing is, it is the teams job to find every single little gray are in the rules and exploit it to their advantage, it’s part of the game.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pmKris said:
I don’t know whose commentary you were watching, Christine, but if as I suspect you were steadfastly a-goggling ITV: Ted said that this is exactly what happened at the same time as explaining all the other pit stops (including Massa’s phantom stop)
June 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pmme said:
agreed, if the pitlane stays open then anyone can jump right in as they please. there’s no guarantee that the test in france will be successful though, or that they’ll decide to implement it straight away. worth keeping an eye on i guess.
you’re probably right about ross not minding giving the game away too.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pmScott Woodwiss said:
I’m surprised none of the other teams picked up on it and did the same thing. But we are talking about Ross Brawn here, who is nothing short of a genius.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pmAlianora La Canta said:
That was a good summary of the loophole, me. The nearest example I can think of was Canada 2007, when Sato used the troublesome hard tyre for one lap under the Safety Car and then swapped to a new set of soft tyres - but that was before the “no refuelling” rule came in.
What is clear is that, as a method of equalising the state of play under the safety car, the rules in play so far this season do not work.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:50 pmme said:
do you think the revised ruling for the next race will solve the issues?
the definition sounds a bit woolly to me, with the ECU “monitoring” drivers speeds, rather than enforcing them. unless i’ve missed something, there’s a chance drivers will spend more time watching their speed rather than looking out for hazards.
much like a speed camera on our roads in fact.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pmMattw said:
The ‘no refuelling’ rule was there in Canada 07. That was the race where Alonso and Nico fell foul of this and had to do a drive through.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pmMattw said:
We are going to see lots of arguments over how fast the drivers react to the instruction. The temptation will be to keep the foot down for a few seconds, and say you didn’t see it.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pmme said:
i think you’re right there. i guess that’s why the teams are keen to try it out before applying the new ruling.
talking of which, has f1 ever had a new rule dummy-run like this before?
June 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pmAlianora La Canta said:
me, I’m not convinced that the rule change will help matters. Unless an exact, consistent speed is set, a reliable method for drivers to keep under it is introduced and consistent enforcement (with a sensible penalty) used, there are going to be serious problems. If, for example, they said that any safety car situation would mean that drivers needed to remain under the pit lane speed limit from within 5 seconds of the Safety Car period until they join the end of the Safety Car queue, with a stop/go penalty for those breaking the rule, then it could work. However I have yet to see any evidence that anything that precise will be in force.
I can see this being yet another example of the FIA trying to get out of a hole through over-complication and merely digging a bigger hole for itself. And no, rules have never been dummy-run in F1 races before.
Thanks for the correction, Mattw.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:33 pmme said:
cheers, i thought that might be the case.
so is this a change of tact from teams / fia, or is it simply nobody trusts this in the slightest?
June 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pmAlianora La Canta said:
It looks like a “we don’t know what we’re doing and don’t want to admit it, but want an easy way to make an even more unnecessarily complex rule should this one cause anything we don’t like to happen” matter.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pmMattw said:
I can’t recall anything like this at a race meeting before (practice days may be a different matter)
But really the FIA are charting new territory here. It’s the first time they are sending instructions directly to the cars. Plus this is a mid-season rule change, so I can understand their desire to have a systems test.
Does anyone know how slowly the cars will be going? The slower they go, the more time in effect for one car to get into the pits and out again before the next car comes along.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:56 pmAlianora La Canta said:
Not yet, Mattw - and that’s part of the problem. Also, systems tests are supposed to be for testing…
June 9th, 2008 at 3:21 pmKeith Collantine said:
That’s very clever… well spotted!
June 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pmbrian hunwicks said:
Question:
if the 6 cars pitted while still under safety car rules–why were reikkenen and kubica allowed to effectively overtake hamilton in this situation—indeed the red light being on indicating safety car still out and rule 1 enforcable—- NO OVERTAKING
June 9th, 2008 at 4:09 pmSteven Roy said:
I shudder at the thought of Max and his cohorts being able to remotely control any aspects of the car’s performance. The implications and repercussions are horrendous. Imagine if they had had that power last year and Lewis had his mysterious problem in Brazil when the car lost drive. Imagine watching that knowing Max could remotely control the car.
I think they would effectively have to put a speed limiter in but at higher speed than the pit lane limiter. Imagine how tyre pressures and temperatures and brake and engine temperatures would be affected if they had prolonged running at pit lane speed limiter speeds.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pmJordan Allen said:
Piece of cake.
MacLaren either had a problem during their pit stop (Hamilton even said that it was not that great of a pit stop) or MacLaren decided to put more fuel into Hamilton car than either Kimi or Robert needed, or both.
You can not call good pit work to be overtaking. (Although it equals the same thing). Under your idea, if my team had the perfect pit stop, does that mean I have to wait for another pit crew to who had the wrong seat of tyres, the wrong refuelling rig connected to an empty tank, and the right refuelling rig can not disconnect after the switch is made to complete their stop and get in front of me? Come on?
And before you ask which team is that stupid, none other than Ferrari done stuff like I have described to Jean Alesi and Gerhard Berger…..
Ahhh the good old days when Ferrari only provided comedy relief for some real F1 fights between Williams and Benetton remember them “Me”?
Jordan (Allen) F1
June 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pmDan Brunell said:
Very, Very Random idea: Instead of mucking about with saftey car rules, how about we put traffic lights on the track an turn an F1 race into a giant game of “red-light. green-light?” We could even use these awesome traffic signals.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pmlinks for 2008-06-09 » vee8 - a Formula 1 blog said:
[...] About that Safety Car Pitstop by Button - Sidepodcast Button stopped while the Safety Car was out in Canada, but got away with it. Sidepodcast has a theory as to why (tags: JensonButton Honda CanadianGrandPrix SafetyCar pitstop regulations RossBrawn tyres fuel) [...]
June 9th, 2008 at 6:35 pmme said:
agreed, but as yet, alternate workable suggestions have been few and far between…
see what i mean?
seriously though. the problem regarding a fixed limiter is that isn’t this supposed to be variable depending on the accident / track?
not sure if i’ve got that right, but a safe limit relating to an unknown accident can’t really be a fixed value in the same way that pit lane limiters are, can it?
those traffic lights are way cool though
June 9th, 2008 at 6:38 pmme said:
vaguely, but man that was a long time ago. i gotta get me some video refresh action i think.
must get a handle on what slick tyres are really going to give us next year.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pmDan Brunell said:
I can almost imagine it like the beginning of a Bond movie where a British agent is in a Formula One car, a random man dress in black leather comes in and turns a button and takes over the car, driving it into the sea. Cue… cheesy intro…
June 9th, 2008 at 8:43 pmSteven Roy said:
I love analog traffic lights. Great idea.
All of these problems go back to Max’s insistence on unnecessary compulsory pit stops. All taht is needed is a set of decent technical regulations, no pit stops, no strategy and let anyone who wants to gain a position do it on the track. No strategy = no need to rush in and out of the pits. It also means we can get back to proper fuel out qualifying. What is environmentally friendly about cars lugging round 50kg of fuel ballast for qualifying? More joined up thinking needed.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:49 pmme said:
you don’t like pitstops? why not?
either way even if you banned refueling, cars would need to pit occasionally, wouldn’t they? say if the two leaders tangled on track you’d be in the same position if one cut a tyre and one broke his nose.
two cars nipping around the track trying to make up time when there’s danger on the track. granted it would happen less often, but you’ll never eliminate the problem entirely.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:08 pmSteven Roy said:
I am not against necessary pit stops. There would need to be a rule limiting the number of mechanics working on a car to limit the ability to use strategic pit stops.
The safety car situation would be much easier because you would not have people diving in and out of the pit lane.
My objection to pit stops is simple. To me the only way a driver should be able to gain a position is to pass someone on the track. Part of the reason the Schumacher era was boring is not because the same person was always winning as the propoganda said but because he never raced wheel to wheel with anyone. Ross Brawn was always putting him on a different bit of track from anyone else and he gained places by driving in clean air. That is not motor racing. At Imola one year he went from 12th to 2nd and only passed one man on the track.
The same five years that Schumacher won titles for Ferrari Valentino Rossi won MotoGP (or equivalent) titles. No-one has ever claimed he or his sport was boring in the same period.
I really want to see Hamilton, Raikkonen, Alonso, Massa, Kovalainen, Kubica and Heidfeld fighting for places on the track. I would be ecstatoc if I never heard a driver say that he waited for the pit stops rather than attempting a pass. It is not remotely difficult to write technical regulations that will let people race. The problems that prevent racing were known to Gilles Villeneuve as was the answer.
There is a reason why people love Dijon 1979 and it has nothing to do with strategy, technology or any of the other bull. It is because two drivers are fighting over the same piece of tarmac.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:08 pmRich said:
Me too.
I have been thinking this one, one suggestion that each pit stop a driver makes to take on fuel or get new tyres or effect repairs incurs a mandatory 30 secs wait in the pits. If you can manage a race without re-fuelling or putting new tyres, you are being more economical and therefore greener, but you get compensated for carrying more fuel weight with no time penalties. It also mean less risk of mistakes in the pit and possibly increased safety.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:11 pmRich said:
Your are right and yes it got Schumacher boring. Rossi on a MotoGP bike never gets boring!
June 9th, 2008 at 9:18 pmme said:
okay, but there’s plenty of overtaking in nascar and they have pitstops too. why shouldn’t the two be able to coexist?
i agree the current aero regs have ruined the spectacle, but i’m not sure that wiping out pitstops is the answer. i guess we’ll see if next year’s regs have gone far enough and then maybe some things might need more analysis, but as a concept for me refueling adds something to the show.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:00 pmSteven Roy said:
The safest bet in the history of the planet is that next years regs won’t work. I would love to bang heads in the overtaking working group. They will unfortunately never go far enough during Max’s hopefully short tenure.
I loved Gilles’ answer to the problem. Take the wings off and throw them away he said. Don’t reduce them just rip them off and throw them in the bin. Then fit a big normally aspirated engine (turbos were prevalent at the time) and 21 inch wide rear slicks.
The problem is that sponsors like wings so the chance of them going is zilch. It is well known that wings when they were first introduced were utterly inefficient until end plates were fitted. So I would keep the wings if necessary and bin the end plates. Instant massive reduction in downforce and much easier for one car to follow another through a corner. I would also not allow a front win in front of the front of the front wheels. That way minor bumps don’t knock the wing off and cause chaos.
As has always been the case since Max was originally elected next years rules are over-complicated. For example we have the ridiculous standard spoon section which has to be integrated into the front wing. I can picture now all the arguments and counter-arguments as to how someone has installed it. Bear in mind the people refereeing this will be the same people who couldn’t measure fuel temeperature. All they had to do was say that the profile of the wing had to be constant all across it so you have flat leading and trailing edges.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:11 pmRich said:
What about putting bull bars* on the front and rear given some of the recent driving we have seen.
*bullbar (also roo bar or nudge bar in Australia) not sure you are allowed them in Europe - not great if you connect with a pedestrian.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:14 pmme said:
i’m willing to cross my fingers and hope for the best on this one. the people behind the working group know their stuff, they probably haven’t gone far enough, but it should be a step in the right direction.
in all other aspects we’re in agreement. i still like pitstops though
June 9th, 2008 at 10:15 pmScott Woodwiss said:
Why not just do what they did one year in the 80s and just take the front wings off? Brabham won a world championship with a car with no front wing back then, and that was a turbo car. Shouldn’t see a problem with it.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:23 pmSteven Roy said:
At that time Scott they had underfloor ground effect tunnels which created a stack of downforce. I would like to ban front wings and let teams sort out the rest of the package. That would give us a bit of variety.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:03 pmRich said:
One year Brabham had a fan car (similar to the American sucker car Chaparral 2J which dominated US sports cars scene) designed by Gordon Murray - the BT46B - it was to contest against the dominant Lotus 79 ground effect car. It only race once - winning in the hands of Niki Lauda (Swedish GP 1978). After the race it was withdrawn and the concept then declared illegal by the FIA. It is the only F1 design with a 100% win record.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:10 pmAlianora La Canta said:
Rich, bull bars used to be legal in the EU but were banned last May for new vehicles or as add-ons, unless it has a frontal protection system to make it safer (a system which doesn’t work with traditional bull bars, but can work with specially-modified versions). However, any vehicle which had a bull bar fitted before that date can still be used with the old bull-bar.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:01 amF1 blogs & more: F1 drivers at Le Mans — F1 blog from F1Fanatic said:
[...] About that safety car pit stop by Button - Eagle-eyed Sidepodcast spotted why Jenson Button didn’t get a penalty in Canada. [...]
June 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pmMark Lanyon said:
If the pitlane was closed why were the pit exit lights on green when Button was leaving.
Maybe the pit entrance should have red/green lights so a driver can see if the pitlane is open before entering
June 11th, 2008 at 2:18 pmme said:
i think because the safety car and the train were elsewhere on the track, there was no immediate danger and therefore it was safe for jenson to exit.
fair point mark, except when the two cars that collided entered the pitlane, both the entrance and the exit were open. however, as they were following the safety car, once it passed the start / finish line, it triggered the red light that closed the exit.
so it shut whilst they were refueling and the drivers simply had to wait until it had passed.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:01 pmRich said:
Thanks Alianora for info on bullbars - they are controversial here in SA and been linked to increased injury to pedestrians.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:11 pmJordan Allen said:
Dan!
How that you gave away the new opening extra scence for the 1967 comedy version “Casino Royale” could you at least tell everyone that its actually THE Bond girl Ursula Andress who presses that button…
Jordan (Allen) F1.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:55 pmSteven Roy said:
Bull bars are controversial every where for the samw reason Rich. Theymay even be banned in the UK. There was some talk of that a few years ago but I can’t remember whether they were banned in the end or not.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:17 pmAlianora La Canta said:
The UK either already has or will soon have to adopt the EU ruling forcing all new bull bars to be compatible with the frontal protection system. Saves the MPs a job…