"right to use the pitlane every lap"

[Don K]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Theoretically everyone would be at the same speed down the pitlane, but it's bad enough when a car tries to pull out of the pitlane just as another is passing through having already stopped. The situation of drivers leaving their braking as late as possible, and perhaps attempting to enter the main pitlane 2-abreast, would not be safe for the pitcrews (if Indy's pitlane is theoretically wide enough for this, the situation is paradoxically even worse). Not only that, but the situation of cars exiting the pitlane across another's path (as Michael did to Rubens in the race) would happen dozens of times. In my mind Michaelin were quite right to reject this impractical and dangerous solution.

Actually, according to traffic flow theory (D.L. Gerlough), a road is considered to be safe for pedestrians crossing the road, as soon as there is on average one possiblity per minute to cross the road safely.

For a road of 9 meters wide (or smaller), this means that it is safe for pedestrians as long as no more than 750 cars per hour pass.



In this case, I would expect the Michelin cars to need about 85 seconds for a lap (including the pit lane).
That would mean that each Michelin car would pass through the pit lane about 42 times per hour.
That would mean that 14 Michelin cars would pass through the pit lane about 14*42= 588 times per hour.
If the Bridgestone teams would make 2 pit stops per hour, that woule mean a total of 12 passes per hour of a Bridgestone car through the pit lane.

Which would mean a total of 588+12= 600 cars per hour.
Well below the maximum of 750 cars per hour.


In other words, as long as the 'fast lane' of the pit lane has a width of 9 meters or less, traffic flow theory dictates that it is a safe situation.

(If we would extrapolate the same formula for lanes that are slightly wider than 9 meters, the situation would remain safe until a width of 10.47 meters).

[Knowlesy]

How can what happened at Indy be the best solution?

I can't be reading this.......what drugs have I been taking?

[John Turner]

I agree Knowlesy, I must be on the same stuff!

[Don K]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Let's imagine that the race had started with the cars using the pitlane.

Why on earth would they start using the pit lane?

The start is "beyond" turn 13.
So it would be perfectly safe to start on the grid, and enter the pit lane at the end of lap 1. By that time the 14 cars would be about as wide apart (in time difference) as after a normal lap.

At that moment we would have 14 cars driving through the pit lane.
Which is a lot safer than 14 cars entering the pit lane, making a pit stop and leaving the pit lane -- which is a situation we often have during a race.

After the second lap, the gaps will be approximately twice as big as after the first lap.
So at that time there probably wouldn't be a problem at all.

[GolddustMini]

Originally Posted by Don K

Actually, according to traffic flow theory (D.L. Gerlough), a road is considered to be safe for pedestrians crossing the road, as soon as there is on average one possiblity per minute to cross the road safely.

For a road of 9 meters wide (or smaller), this means that it is safe for pedestrians as long as no more than 750 cars per hour pass.



In this case, I would expect the Michelin cars to need about 85 seconds for a lap (including the pit lane).
That would mean that each Michelin car would pass through the pit lane about 42 times per hour.
That would mean that 14 Michelin cars would pass through the pit lane about 14*42= 588 times per hour.
If the Bridgestone teams would make 2 pit stops per hour, that woule mean a total of 12 passes per hour of a Bridgestone car through the pit lane.

Which would mean a total of 588+12= 600 cars per hour.
Well below the maximum of 750 cars per hour.


In other words, as long as the 'fast lane' of the pit lane has a width of 9 meters or less, traffic flow theory dictates that it is a safe situation.

(If we would extrapolate the same formula for lanes that are slightly wider than 9 meters, the situation would remain safe until a width of 10.47 meters).

and then you realise that this is racing and these are racing drivers your talking about and predicatabilty goes out of the window

[Testure]

There would have been almost as much outcry had this pitlane idea gone ahead as there was at the six cars running around. Whatever about the safety of it, I reckon it would have made F1 look just as ridiculous and we'd be having exactly the same discussions about whether F1 is dead in the US or whether it'll ever be back to the IMS.

[Knowlesy]

yep, that's another reason why it was unworkeable.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by GolddustMini

and then you realise that this is racing and these are racing drivers your talking about and predicatabilty goes out of the window

I would say that predictability goes up, rather than down.

We could certainly expect *all* of those cars to have the same speed.
Which we could *not* expect at a normal road.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by GolddustMini

and then you realise that this is racing and these are racing drivers your talking about and predicatabilty goes out of the window

In case you are talking about my expectation that the cars would lap in 85 seconds:

If some of the cars would be lapping slower, there would be even *less than* 600 cars passing through the pit lane -- making it even more safe ...

[ASCII Man]

Doesn't make it any less absurd though...

[Don K]

Originally Posted by GolddustMini

and then you realise that this is racing and these are racing drivers your talking about and predicatabilty goes out of the window

In case you are talking about expected number of gaps big enough for walking across the pit lane:
That's probably just a simple Poisson distribution.

So with racing drivers, it would work out exactly the same as with any other kind of driver.

[Knowlesy]

I think you're spending too much time trying to justify that suggestion Don K ,in all honesty.

It was an absurd, pathetic thing to even ask the drivers to do and that's it.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Doesn't make it any less absurd though...

Why?

If they can keep up with that 85 seconds/lap speed, they would have been able to complete 63 laps before the end of the race.
So they could have completer 64 laps.
They would only need to complete 63 laps to be classified.

Which means that the Michelin teams would actually have been racing for points.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

It was an absurd, pathetic thing to even ask the drivers to do and that's it.

If that is the case:

Why did Michelin ask FIA to find a way to make sure the speed of the Michelin cars would be brought down?

Why didn't Michelin propose a chicane in the first place, why did they wait until after FIA had already made their three options?

Why did they reject FIA's proposal without explaining?

Why did they (at that time) suddenly suggest that a chicane might help --- while at the same time saying that the could not say which speed would have been safe?

[BootsOntheSide]

Alright Don K, imagine this situation. A Ferrari official such as Chris Dyer is on the pitwall on a 3-banana strategy, when he finds telemetry warning that Michael Shcumacher's tyre is on its last legs. Michael is about to pit, and he has 30 seconds to get across the pitlane, avoding cars doing 75mph, to communicate this to the team and prevent a otentially fatal accident. The rule of the road doesn't really apply when people are doing their job in a tight space, adn teh cars are passing at 2 1/2 times the speed limit,a dn knwoign that easing off could mean losing the race,r ather than arriving at a destination 2 seconds later, and you can see why it would have been so dangerous.

[Kicking-back]

Boots - he would be able to radio the lollipop man and tell him.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Don K

If that is the case:

1. Why did Michelin ask FIA to find a way to make sure the speed of the Michelin cars would be brought down?

2. Why didn't Michelin propose a chicane in the first place, why did they wait until after FIA had already made their three options?

3. Why did they reject FIA's proposal without explaining?

4. Why did they (at that time) suddenly suggest that a chicane might help --- while at the same time saying that the could not say which speed would have been safe?

1. They probably expected the FIA to be a little less outlandish with its suggestions. I'd imagine they thought a chicane would be the first thing they'd think of.

2. See above.

3. Come on! Does it really need explaining?

4. Didn't they know what a safe speed would be?

As a fan, would you have liked to see cars trundling through pitlane all race? Similarly, would you have liked to see 14 cars coasting round the banking whilst 6 other cars go at full speed? Both scenarios have much larger dangers and look utterly pathetic, much more than a chicane.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Alright Don K, imagine this situation. A Ferrari official such as Chris Dyer is on the pitwall on a 3-banana strategy, when he finds telemetry warning that Michael Shcumacher's tyre is on its last legs. Michael is about to pit, and he has 30 seconds to get across the pitlane, avoding cars doing 75mph, to communicate this to the team and prevent a otentially fatal accident. The rule of the road doesn't really apply when people are doing their job in a tight space, and the cars are passing at 2 1/2 times the speed limit, and knowing that easing off could mean losing the race, rather than arriving at a destination 2 seconds later, and you can see why it would have been so dangerous.

If Michael is about to pit, he cannot refuel *and* change tyres in the same pit stop.

Which means that the guy has got quite some time, even if he does *not* have a direct line of communication.
I guess there would be a safe gap (for walking across the fast lane) about once every 45 seconds, so there's quite a good chance that he can reach the pits before Michael pits. If not, than he can surely reach the pits before Michael has completed half a lap.
So he would be in time to have the team radio Michael that he has to be careful, and that he has to come in again and change his tyres.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

The rule of the road doesn't really apply when people are doing their job in a tight space, adn teh cars are passing at 2 1/2 times the speed limit, ...

Why on earth would anybody drive through the pit lane at 2 1/2 times the pit lane speed limit?

[Don K]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

1. They probably expected the FIA to be a little less outlandish with its suggestions. I'd imagine they thought a chicane would be the first thing they'd think of.

2. See above.

3. Come on! Does it really need explaining?

4. Didn't they know what a safe speed would be?

As a fan, would you have liked to see cars trundling through pitlane all race? Similarly, would you have liked to see 14 cars coasting round the banking whilst 6 other cars go at full speed? Both scenarios have much larger dangers and look utterly pathetic, much more than a chicane.

As far as I know, the teams claimed that FIA's options would still be dangerous because Michelin supposedly was *not* able to name any speed that would be safe in that corner -- allthough FIA explicitely asked Michelin to convey that information to the teams ASAP.

[Knowlesy]

Well the FIA's options were dangerous whether Michelin named a speed or not!

[Don K]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

3. Come on! Does it really need explaining?

Apparently yes.


You claim that they expected that FIA would somehow come up with the idea that Michelin had in mind (but they did not want to ask for it).

The FIA answered something else.

So either they miscalculated, or FIA did know something that Michelin did not know, or Michelin did know something that FIA did not know.

In all of those three cases, the normal thing to do would be to tell FIA why they(Michelin) thought FIA's proposals would not work, and to tell FIA that they thought that a chicane would work (and *why* they thought it would work).

Instead, they simply said that they were vetoing any solution which would *not* include a chicane.
Again, without making a statement that they thought that a chicane *would* work.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

Well the FIA's options were dangerous whether Michelin named a speed or not!

Why?


And if lowering the speed was dangerous, why did Michelin *ask* FIA to lower the speed?

[Adam43]

*No*.

[Testure]

Originally Posted by Don K

Actually, according to traffic flow theory (D.L. Gerlough), a road is considered to be safe for pedestrians crossing the road, as soon as there is on average one possiblity per minute to cross the road safely.

For a road of 9 meters wide (or smaller), this means that it is safe for pedestrians as long as no more than 750 cars per hour pass.



In this case, I would expect the Michelin cars to need about 85 seconds for a lap (including the pit lane).
That would mean that each Michelin car would pass through the pit lane about 42 times per hour.
That would mean that 14 Michelin cars would pass through the pit lane about 14*42= 588 times per hour.
If the Bridgestone teams would make 2 pit stops per hour, that woule mean a total of 12 passes per hour of a Bridgestone car through the pit lane.

Which would mean a total of 588+12= 600 cars per hour.
Well below the maximum of 750 cars per hour.


In other words, as long as the 'fast lane' of the pit lane has a width of 9 meters or less, traffic flow theory dictates that it is a safe situation.

(If we would extrapolate the same formula for lanes that are slightly wider than 9 meters, the situation would remain safe until a width of 10.47 meters).

Don, I think your statistics are too simplistic to be of much use. You're trying to view the group of cars too much as a group of equals; I think we would need to consider it at a level "above" that... A few points of data occur:

Even with the cars travelling through the pit lane every lap, and thus travelling at equal speed for that portion of the lap, the variance in complete lap time of each car in the field of 20 would be much the same as always. Certainly, it would follow the same basic pattern as at any other race.

Lap times change considerably over the course of fuel "stints". Further, different cars show different variances in that variance, even the same makes of cars. Car setup and driving style affect this.

Every car chooses it's own race strategy and, thus, the length of the stints into which it divides it's race. So, every car will potentially need to pit for fuel at a different lap to every other car. Once back into the race, the car will be operating at a different sequence to its peers. Perhaps you could have each car divide the race into the same number of stints, but the first two points negate any benefit to that (in my opinion).

Using the pitlane changes the rate of fuel consumption and, presumably, would affect the decision on how many fuel stops would be required. There's too many small details like this to think of the problem "statically", it's much more dynamic.

Also, I would suspect that the particular dynamics of a racing pitlane would conflict with the set of assumptions made in the study you quote. For example - it's been noted that the Indy pitlane is particularly wide. Your profile says that you can program - it would be a straightforward exercise to code up a little simulation of all this.


And now that I've surely sent the population of this board into a deep coma I'd just like to say: "boink" and pull a silly face. Thanks