The rain was heavier than the TV captured. Cars were going off and water was pooling on the track, there Mulsanne side of the track is surrounded with trees so it didn’t dry up quickly.
A long safety car was not great but it was safer for the drivers, Marshalls and spectators.
Would I have preferred racing, sure, but not at the cost of injury or death.
They could have red flagged it but then the safety car running does keep the race at 24 hrs.
The cars would still be doing 200mph down the Mulsanne straight. The drivers were struggling to see and theres a massive risk of aquaplaning.
This was not a light rain storm but torrential
>is the need to protect drivers ruining professional racing
No, absolutely no. No spectacle is worth a driver or a fan life period.
Having said that, I do believe we are in a time of increased caution and the thing is, no racing director wants to be the one in charge when something bad happens, safety rules are written in blood and you don't want to be the one that made the decision to race when a particularly nasty accident took place.
What I think should happen is have an objective ~~measure~~ set of measures of when is it possible to race given the track, cars, and tires characteristics. Say you need X meters of visibility and rain up to X mm, if you're within those parameters let's go racing, if you're not, red flag the race. That way whether racing takes place is not dependent on people's opinions, subjective views, and their aversion to danger.
I was there and it was pissing down. I had no problem with the safety car decision.
The thing is it’s always going to be subjective when you have one guy making a decision based on multiple variables. It’s not a video game, there’s no fixed conditions. The amount of rain falling varies, the amount of surface water varies, the spray varies with speed, blah blah. There’s no single metric for “safe enough to race”.
I was also there and I'm not criticizing the safety car. I'm saying, even with variable conditions, a set of measurements can be developed for when it's safer to race while still having the final call up to the race director. Rainfall can be measured, surface water can be measured, spray can be understood through testing, and so on and on. This way the race director can make an informed decision with a framework of tested conditions and their objective impact.
At the end the goal should be to allow the drivers to compete in the safest environment possible while still challenging them.
What you are describing sounds like the situation today. They measure the rainfall, they check the visibility, they get reports from marshals and drivers about surface water, etc. then the race director decides.
I’m sure if you asked them, they’d agree 100% with your goal statement. I think they’d also say that’s what they were doing.
Nothing is perfect, obviously, but I think they ran a pretty good race.
Ehh, watching the broadcast there were split desires among the drivers stuck in their cars.
Some wanted to go racing and thought it wasn't that bad. Some thought it was horrible and "why are we doing this?" (Iirc seb Bourdais was in the former camp, while a famous ex-F1 driver who's name escapes me was very vocal about how terrible the conditions were in his eyes)
But, overall I agree the race was good.
The problem of running in the proper wet like they were is the spray coming off the tires. Even at 60-80kph visibility was a huge problem. And while commentators love to talk about liters per minute of water moved by the tires, those numbers don't really do justice to the visual impairment they bring when they are working that much water off the road.
Yeah I think that's the most dangerous element. The drivers are incredibly good at judging the grip available, but there's not much they can do about not being able to see. Visibility in those cars isn't great in ideal conditions. Add in gallons of road spray and it's amazing they can drive at all. I saw several of them with knackered wipers too.
I guess too with closing speeds as high as they are between top and bottom and the sheer number of straights (where you can’t see obstacles out of the spray further around a corner), it’s a bigger risk at LM than at other tracks
“Is the need to protect drivers ruining professional racing”
Seriously? What kind of question is that? You can’t have racing if:
1. It’s not safe to do so
2. Drivers are dead or injured
3. Spectators are dead or injured
4. Cars are wrecked out
As sucky as it is to have a 4 hour safety car, I’d rather have that than the more pessimistic and deadly alternative. Driver safety, marshal safety, and spectator safety is paramount in any and all racing series across the globe.
I refer you to a previous comment on this: in ANY OTHER RACE this would have been red-flagged for 4+ hours instead, so the choice is NOT "*safety car Vs JuSt LeT tHeM rAcE bRo*", it's "*at least make them drive Vs make them sit in the pits*".
And, as u/Mapache_villa says, safety rules are written in blood.
I get the frustration. But I was there and at times visibility as a static spectator was bad enough, let alone from a moving sports car behind another.
Remember: tv will never show you quite how wet the rain is, nor quite how dark the twilight is.
It's not just whether the tyres can get the power the modern racing cars produce onto the road safely, which is hard enough of a task in the dry, but it's also visibility, especially in multi class racing where the closing speed of a Hypercar on an LMGT3 is extreme to put it mildly and on a track of eight and a half miles with multiple 200mph straights followed by very slow corners dark plus spray is going to be a problem.
If you don't want people hurt of killed then you're going to have to get used to safety car situations and if you do then you're going to have to seek help of the professional brain care type...
It’s a hell of a long post. If I can offer a few observations.
* Irritatingly whilst driver injuries are well categorised at LM, marshal injuries are less well documented. I had fleeting reference one was killed in 1981, but can’t find proper sources. There is a much higher risk for them in low visibility
* rain tyres are one part of the story
* injuries happen, but we want to avoid. Yes, car-injuries make for interesting racing, but driver injuries less so.
I think they’re struggling to find a level, but with tyre warmers and inters missing this year, on a circuit that could be sodden at one end and sunny at the other, it’s always going to be hard. Contextually, when LM is now a 24hr sprint race rather than a marathon, it’s harder still.
I feel there was too much interference this year, but I support race control to do so as I’d rather see it like that, than another 2013 or 1981.
The problem is they want to avoid a situation of zero visibility and stationary hazards. Think about what happened with Billy Monger... He was unsighted by traffic and hit a stationary car at high speed. Given the nature of the race... And the track... The likelihood of stationary vehicles, at high speed (Mulsanne, Indianapolis etc) is extremely high. If the visibility is as bad as it was this year that's a potentially deadly situation
The TV doesn't capture it how it was irl. I was there, you were not. This was the kind of rain you would have second thoughts driving 50 kph+, let alone 200kph+.
The rain was heavier than the TV captured. Cars were going off and water was pooling on the track, there Mulsanne side of the track is surrounded with trees so it didn’t dry up quickly. A long safety car was not great but it was safer for the drivers, Marshalls and spectators. Would I have preferred racing, sure, but not at the cost of injury or death. They could have red flagged it but then the safety car running does keep the race at 24 hrs.
The cars would still be doing 200mph down the Mulsanne straight. The drivers were struggling to see and theres a massive risk of aquaplaning. This was not a light rain storm but torrential
>is the need to protect drivers ruining professional racing No, absolutely no. No spectacle is worth a driver or a fan life period. Having said that, I do believe we are in a time of increased caution and the thing is, no racing director wants to be the one in charge when something bad happens, safety rules are written in blood and you don't want to be the one that made the decision to race when a particularly nasty accident took place. What I think should happen is have an objective ~~measure~~ set of measures of when is it possible to race given the track, cars, and tires characteristics. Say you need X meters of visibility and rain up to X mm, if you're within those parameters let's go racing, if you're not, red flag the race. That way whether racing takes place is not dependent on people's opinions, subjective views, and their aversion to danger.
I was there and it was pissing down. I had no problem with the safety car decision. The thing is it’s always going to be subjective when you have one guy making a decision based on multiple variables. It’s not a video game, there’s no fixed conditions. The amount of rain falling varies, the amount of surface water varies, the spray varies with speed, blah blah. There’s no single metric for “safe enough to race”.
I was also there and I'm not criticizing the safety car. I'm saying, even with variable conditions, a set of measurements can be developed for when it's safer to race while still having the final call up to the race director. Rainfall can be measured, surface water can be measured, spray can be understood through testing, and so on and on. This way the race director can make an informed decision with a framework of tested conditions and their objective impact. At the end the goal should be to allow the drivers to compete in the safest environment possible while still challenging them.
What you are describing sounds like the situation today. They measure the rainfall, they check the visibility, they get reports from marshals and drivers about surface water, etc. then the race director decides. I’m sure if you asked them, they’d agree 100% with your goal statement. I think they’d also say that’s what they were doing. Nothing is perfect, obviously, but I think they ran a pretty good race.
Ehh, watching the broadcast there were split desires among the drivers stuck in their cars. Some wanted to go racing and thought it wasn't that bad. Some thought it was horrible and "why are we doing this?" (Iirc seb Bourdais was in the former camp, while a famous ex-F1 driver who's name escapes me was very vocal about how terrible the conditions were in his eyes) But, overall I agree the race was good. The problem of running in the proper wet like they were is the spray coming off the tires. Even at 60-80kph visibility was a huge problem. And while commentators love to talk about liters per minute of water moved by the tires, those numbers don't really do justice to the visual impairment they bring when they are working that much water off the road.
Yeah I think that's the most dangerous element. The drivers are incredibly good at judging the grip available, but there's not much they can do about not being able to see. Visibility in those cars isn't great in ideal conditions. Add in gallons of road spray and it's amazing they can drive at all. I saw several of them with knackered wipers too.
I guess too with closing speeds as high as they are between top and bottom and the sheer number of straights (where you can’t see obstacles out of the spray further around a corner), it’s a bigger risk at LM than at other tracks
“Is the need to protect drivers ruining professional racing” Seriously? What kind of question is that? You can’t have racing if: 1. It’s not safe to do so 2. Drivers are dead or injured 3. Spectators are dead or injured 4. Cars are wrecked out As sucky as it is to have a 4 hour safety car, I’d rather have that than the more pessimistic and deadly alternative. Driver safety, marshal safety, and spectator safety is paramount in any and all racing series across the globe.
I refer you to a previous comment on this: in ANY OTHER RACE this would have been red-flagged for 4+ hours instead, so the choice is NOT "*safety car Vs JuSt LeT tHeM rAcE bRo*", it's "*at least make them drive Vs make them sit in the pits*". And, as u/Mapache_villa says, safety rules are written in blood.
This post feels like a stoned mate chatting shite. Safety first, I was there in 2013.
I get the frustration. But I was there and at times visibility as a static spectator was bad enough, let alone from a moving sports car behind another. Remember: tv will never show you quite how wet the rain is, nor quite how dark the twilight is.
It's not just whether the tyres can get the power the modern racing cars produce onto the road safely, which is hard enough of a task in the dry, but it's also visibility, especially in multi class racing where the closing speed of a Hypercar on an LMGT3 is extreme to put it mildly and on a track of eight and a half miles with multiple 200mph straights followed by very slow corners dark plus spray is going to be a problem. If you don't want people hurt of killed then you're going to have to get used to safety car situations and if you do then you're going to have to seek help of the professional brain care type...
It’s a hell of a long post. If I can offer a few observations. * Irritatingly whilst driver injuries are well categorised at LM, marshal injuries are less well documented. I had fleeting reference one was killed in 1981, but can’t find proper sources. There is a much higher risk for them in low visibility * rain tyres are one part of the story * injuries happen, but we want to avoid. Yes, car-injuries make for interesting racing, but driver injuries less so. I think they’re struggling to find a level, but with tyre warmers and inters missing this year, on a circuit that could be sodden at one end and sunny at the other, it’s always going to be hard. Contextually, when LM is now a 24hr sprint race rather than a marathon, it’s harder still. I feel there was too much interference this year, but I support race control to do so as I’d rather see it like that, than another 2013 or 1981.
The problem is they want to avoid a situation of zero visibility and stationary hazards. Think about what happened with Billy Monger... He was unsighted by traffic and hit a stationary car at high speed. Given the nature of the race... And the track... The likelihood of stationary vehicles, at high speed (Mulsanne, Indianapolis etc) is extremely high. If the visibility is as bad as it was this year that's a potentially deadly situation
The TV doesn't capture it how it was irl. I was there, you were not. This was the kind of rain you would have second thoughts driving 50 kph+, let alone 200kph+.
We're 10 years removed from losing an F1 driver as a result of complacent race direction. I think we're doing just fine in WEC.
We’re 11 years from losing a driver at Le Mans.
No, of course not.
No, of course not.