"right to use the pitlane every lap"

[mac]

Fact is Michelin could not guarantee the safety of their tyres no matter what speed the cars went through the last turn - which is why they could not set a limit.

And which is why I am baffled as to why they think a chicane before the corner would have made any difference to the safety of the tyres.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Don K

Why on earth would they start using the pit lane?

I just meant the pit lane option.

What if they'd gone around the track the other way.....Except for the Bridgestone runners....Exciting or what!

[richard_sykes]

Sounds a ridiculous idea. Cannot see a huge benefit either.

How long does a pit lane drive last, 20 seconds?

Surely that would effect tyre temp, worst than standing still as they are moving to slow to promte warming yet have resonable amount of air cooling.

Correct me if I am wrong!

[Dixie Flatline]

I, too, also have reservations about the pitlane option.

Having done some statistics at university level, I can see where the traffic flow theory could be used to justify the pitlane option's safety. Yet, having observed the behaviour of, for example, a statistically modelled telecommunications network during my days as an electrical engineering undergraduate, you can always see some results that do not meet the statistical mean. In a real life situation, statistics can only take you so far. My problem with the option is that it could not be guaranteed to be safe each time my team's drivers passed through the pitlane - there are too many variables to be considered, such as the probability of another team's car pitting and then pulling out of its box, etc., engineers crossing pitlane, etc.

[JeremySmith]

Well simply the pitlane is not designed for racing, that is why it is separate from the race track, has a speed limit and is intended ONLY to service cars, and not to race them.. I found that suggestion by the FIA to to be completely lame.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by mac

And which is why I am baffled as to why they think a chicane before the corner would have made any difference to the safety of the tyres.

Because the problem with the tyres was the loadings they got going through the banking at speed.

With a chicane they would have been going through the critical area slower.

[Gt_R]

I do prefer the 14 cars sit out of the race than any concessions be made to circuit for their benefits. Similarly, the idea of a pitlane and slower speed are equally dubious and hence should not be hastily implemented.

FIA did bring up a good point in their argument. Michelin tyres not only failed at the banked turn, but also at turn 5. At the point of the weekend, Michelin had no idea what caused the tyre failures and hence, no clue to what steps could be taken to garantee safety. It isn't even conclusive that the banking is the direct cause of the tyre failure.

Any suggestions of a chicane or slower speed doesnt garantee safety because you can't have a solution to a problem you don't even know the root of. The only sensible way is to gracefully withdraw the tyres from the race and make a proper announcement to inform everybody WHY such a step has to be taken.

It would have reflected well on Michelin and F1, although causing some unrest.

Instead, we have a slagging match after some form of demonstration which tarnished our sports.

if the goodwill for fans are really important, F1 should have carried on the main race with the 6 cars. After the main race, we can have a 8 laps sprint race non-points scoring (since Michelin insist the tyres are safe for 10laps) among the Michelin teams just to show that they tried to put up a show and make ammends for the spectators.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Testure

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

It's not a statical calculation at all.

It is a simple calculation which shows there can be no more than 600 cars passing through the pitlane per hour.
If you add more pit stops, or if you include that not every car will be able to keep up with those 85 second laps, it just decreases the total number of cars driving through the pitlane per hour, making the situation even more safe.

And a simple observation that 600 cars per hour passing through a pit lane leads to a situation in which it is safe to cross the pit lane.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Dixie Flatline

I, too, also have reservations about the pitlane option.

Having done some statistics at university level, I can see where the traffic flow theory could be used to justify the pitlane option's safety. Yet, having observed the behaviour of, for example, a statistically modelled telecommunications network during my days as an electrical engineering undergraduate, you can always see some results that do not meet the statistical mean. In a real life situation, statistics can only take you so far. My problem with the option is that it could not be guaranteed to be safe each time my team's drivers passed through the pitlane - there are too many variables to be considered, such as the probability of another team's car pitting and then pulling out of its box, etc., engineers crossing pitlane, etc.

If somebody wants to cross the pitlane, he *knows* whether or not another car is about to have a pit stop or not (because he can see whether or not a pit crew is standing outside).

And of course, this statistical model does not *quite* cover the pit lane situation. For instance, in the model there is some minute chance of 25 cars passing within a minute - whereas in this pit lane, that chance is zero. And in the model, there is some minute chance that there will be a 3 minute gap in which *no* car pass through - whereas that will not happen during the race (unless there's a pace car situation).

But I think the model is good enough. If 600 cars are passing through the pit lane, there are bound to be a lot of crossing opportuinities, even if they pass at completely random moments. And if there happen to be some hidden "pattern", this will only increase the number of gaps.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

if the goodwill for fans are really important, F1 should have carried on the main race with the 6 cars. After the main race, we can have a 8 laps sprint race non-points scoring (since Michelin insist the tyres are safe for 10laps) among the Michelin teams just to show that they tried to put up a show and make ammends for the spectators.

Problem is, that would only have been possible if they would have told the fans before the start of the race.

I'm not quite sure when the actual decission was made (I think it happened less than half an hour before the race).

And I'm not quite sure whether the people who made the decission did inform the organisers in time.

----

But I agree, the best thing to do might have been to have some small non-point race with more cars. Preferably *before* the real race.

However, it would have been *very* hard to organise that.

[Testure]

Originally Posted by Don K

And a simple observation that 600 cars per hour passing through a pit lane leads to a situation in which it is safe to cross the pit lane.

... given the constraints/assumptions/lemmas made in 1) your post and 2) the study in question.

[BootsOntheSide]

When I said "2 1/2 times the speed limit" I meant the speed limit on normal roads, 30mph in the UK. F1 cars travelling much faster than that will be much harder to pre-empt. What's more, the cars wouldn't have room to swerve to avoid anyone that did get in the way. I'm still amazed that such a ridiculous calculation has been applied to something so different from ordinary road use.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

When I said "2 1/2 times the speed limit" I meant the speed limit on normal roads, 30mph in the UK. F1 cars travelling much faster than that will be much harder to pre-empt. What's more, the cars wouldn't have room to swerve to avoid anyone that did get in the way. I'm still amazed that such a ridiculous calculation has been applied to something so different from ordinary road use.

On average, there would be 6 seconds between any 2 cars.

Because the cars come in at random moments, theory predicts that there will be more than 1 safe gap per minute for crossing the pit lane.

The acutal *speed* of the cars does not have much influence (as long as you are able to see whether or not a car is coming).


The formula does *not* expect the cars to swerve to avoid anyone. The formula ( N=8289.3*(1.778-log(W))/W ) also works for roads as narrow as 2 meters (in fact, that is the lower limit for that formula).

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Don K

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.

Incorrect!

Cars will only be classified if they complete at least 66 laps.
So the Michelin cars would have gotten *no* points.
Which would have made it pointless for them to race.

[BootsOntheSide]

Cars have to complete 90% of the 70-lap distance to be classified - that means 63 laps. So you were right the first time. Interting that you can calculate N=8289.3*(1.778-log(W))/W but not 70x0.9.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Cars have to complete 90% of the 70-lap distance to be classified - that means 63 laps. So you were right the first time. Interting that you can calculate N=8289.3*(1.778-log(W))/W but not 70x0.9.

Actually, Michael did 73 laps in the USA GP.

Which makes the necessary number of laps 73*0.9= 65.7.
So a car would have needed to complete 65 laps in order to be classified.

[Testure]

Originally Posted by Don K

The formula ( N=8289.3*(1.778-log(W))/W ) also works for roads as narrow as 2 meters (in fact, that is the lower limit for that formula).

The upper limit being? The Indy pitlane is quite enormous. What about average walking speed of somebody carrying equipment? Also, this sub-thread this predicated on "safe" being defined as "the ability to cross from one side of a road to the other".

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Testure

The upper limit being? The Indy pitlane is quite enormous. What about average walking speed of somebody carrying equipment? Also, this sub-thread this predicated on "safe" being defined as "the ability to cross from one side of a road to the other".

As far as I understood, this formula works for widths between 2m and 9m.

In this case, I think we should be looking at the width of the "fast lane".

As far as I understood, F1 uses only part of the width of the pit lane.

According to F1 rules, the part of the pit lane which is being used by F1, is divided between a "fast lane" and an "inner lane".


I'm not sure whether or not teams are supposed to carry equipment across the fast lane. They are only allowed to work on the cars in the "inner lane".

[ozywoodwards]

we seem to have got sidetracked onto pointless statistics, and what seems to have been forgotten is that drivers would be lulled into a false sense of security as lap after lap they would go through the pit lane at static distances from one another, then all of a sudden one lap the driver in front may have pitted for fuel or whatever and thus braked, causing the driver behind to hit him. also when released there are all to often instances even under normal conditions when cars nearly hit.

this is not to mention the potential accidents on entry to the speed limit as has already been mentioned. its just common sense that it was unworkable, potentially very dangerous and an inadequate solution anyway, as the fans would still have been cheated. to instigate a fundamental change such as that where the consequences of an accident are so huge would have been ludicrous IMO.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by ozywoodwards

we seem to have got sidetracked onto pointless statistics, and what seems to have been forgotten is that drivers would be lulled into a false sense of security as lap after lap they would go through the pit lane at static distances from one another, then all of a sudden one lap the driver in front may have pitted for fuel or whatever and thus braked, ...

I think that is what the inner lane is for.

Unless two adjacent teams decide to pit at the same time, in which case the other cars are certainly very aware of all those extra people (plus a car) in the pits.

----------

These statistics may *seem* pointless, but they show that there is far less danger than people assumed.

[Knowlesy]

Yet fail to prove any semblance of sanity in the "solution".

[Don K]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

Yet fail to prove any semblance of sanity in the "solution".

In fact I *did* prove that it was insane, because any car following that scheme would be too slow to be classified.

[Knowlesy]

Well, we've achieved something then!