Should the FIA make starters mandatory?

[Mr V]

Maybe your right.

Trouble i can see is the compression of starting an F1 engine would be so vast that the starters wouldn't be up to it.

[Knowlesy]

Well, it wouldn't be a straightforward task by any means but they could surely do it.

They just need to be told that they must do it or else their cars are deemed illegal.

[tristancliffe]

Then all they have to do it lower the compression in the engines! No regulations stating they have to run them like that; they do it because they can. If they were regulated to carry a starter motor system then they'd tweak the rest of the car to accept it - although that would have to wait until the engine freeze is lifted.

[Mr V]

F1 moves in the blink of an eye, can't see them waiting 5 years for the freeze to be over

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

But it would be even if they had starters as well.

There really is no reason not to have them, apart from the reducing weight excuse. They have anti-stall already, so they may as well have the full monty.

Well, it is just as even a field as when they don't have starters. It only becomes uneven if some have starters and some don't, and the choice of whether or not to have it is not open. They have anti-stall already, so they may as well have the "full monty"? Well, perhaps, but,frankly, I would prefer them to not have the anti-stall either.

I just like F1 having a brutally fine line between success and failure. All this ten miles of tarmac run-off, pushes without DQ, and such, frustrates me: giving them starters is just another step down this road.

[Knowlesy]

Yes and with its mile wide tarmac run-offs it is exactly that.

IMO if you have spun it and kept the car out of the gravel or from the walls you should be able to start her up and get going again.

It is seriously stupid and pathetic to half-spin at the apex of a 2mph corner and then be potentially out of the race.

[Dutton]

If the mistake is not made, then the punishment does not rear its head.

[Knowlesy]

True enough, but the punishment does not have to be so severe.

[tristancliffe]

Actually that's a damn good argument for NOT having starters. I've changed my mind, I don't want them.

They are the best drivers in the world, apparently, and so should be punished ESPECIALLY for noob mistakes. This includes stalling, which gets laughed at in real life with your mates, let alone at the peak of motorsport.

Dutton has converted me to his cause!

[Armco Bender]

Martin Whitmarsh said that Heikki Kovalainen's problem in Monaco was software related...

Vista ??...

[JeremySmith]

Just Microsoft...

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by tristancliffe

Dutton has converted me to his cause!

*Excellent [in the Monty Burns nature]*

In most other forms of motorsport I view the situation a bit differently: the reasons vary depending on the series in question. F1, though, given it is quite insane the resources that go into it, and it is outrageously difficult to succeed in it, well, then, IMO, it should have that all-or-nothing nature to it.

You make a mistake, no matter how small, and the punishment should be great. After all, when you succeed, the rewards are rather significant.

This massively hard aspect is being gradually neutered: as a symbol of this, I point to the gradual emasculation of Monaco.

[Leighton Irwin]

It is going to take a battery with lots of amps and high cranking reserves to start one of those engines when HOT. Ie big and heavy.I speak from close to 30 years of working on all sorts of race cars from F1 down to FV and production cars. Race engines with there usually high compression ratios and very very tight tolerances, especially when hot, do not like to start on a starter. If it doesn't go on the 1st try of a second or two (very rarely) forget it. Funnily enough they normally will start with just a slight push unless something else is wrong.

[Dutton]

Leighton, I undoubtedly bow to your extreme knowledge. I argue for the lack of self-starter on ideological rather than practical grounds, but I must embrace those who can support with a practical base.

One thing I am aware is that open-wheelers, for the most part, are a different beast to the fendered alternative. There are some series, IMSA leaves room for sure, which can switch and play, but, overall, there is still a difference.

I am rambling I guess, but what I mean is that something different is not necessarily the best: it all depends.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Dutton

If the mistake is not made, then the punishment does not rear its head.

And what if a driver spins because of somebody else's mistake? Of course, if a car is heavily damaged he won't be able to continue. But with only a stalled engine a retirement is too severe.

But don't forget about the safety element. With mandatory starters a drivers is enabled to restart his engine after having it stalled on a dangerous spot. With the current rules a driver is unable to do so and it might force the race stewards to deploy the Safety Car. Not only the driver who made the mistake is punished, his innocent colleagues may get punished as well due the Safety Car.

[Marbot]

BMW (and others) now have a range of cars that use the 'stop-start' technology to save on fuel.Surely F1 should also be thinking along these lines.Although,of course,a car that can't be started again is going to save a lot of fuel.

Also,should anti-stall be permmited if drivers are perfectly capable of using a clutch?

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

And what if a driver spins because of somebody else's mistake?

But with only a stalled engine a retirement is too severe.

But don't forget about the safety element. With mandatory starters[,] a driver[] is enabled to restart his engine after having it stalled [in a] dangerous spot. With the current rules[,] a driver is unable to do so[,] and it might force the race stewards to deploy the Safety Car. Not only the driver who made the mistake is punished[:] his innocent colleagues may get punished as well[,] due [to] the Safety Car.

Someone-else's mistake? Tough ****. That is racing. Suck it up.

I have no problem with drivers being pushed to get them out of a dangerous spot. They should then be disqualified. Unless the rules have since altered, the current scenario allows for a driver to continue (given such subjective considerations).

A push should equal disqualification. As a bearable alternative, a push should be acceptable in all scenarios: this "dangerous scenario" thing allows for (inconsistent) subjectivity.

[Armco Bender]

What would happen if the whole grid stalled?.....everyone disqualified,race over.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

BMW (and others) now have a range of cars that use the 'stop-start' technology to save on fuel.Surely F1 should also be thinking along these lines.Although,of course,a car that can't be started again is going to save a lot of fuel.

Yeah, I think Formula 1 should focus on fuel efficiency there were possible. That would make Formula 1 more road relevent. But with the current rules that is simply impossible.

Also,should anti-stall be permmited if drivers are perfectly capable of using a clutch?

Good point. I think anti-stall shouldn't be permitted. In some way it just another driver aid.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

A push should equal disqualification.

I would assume that this also includes being 'craned' back onto the track.

The famous (?) Schumacher 'push' and the Hamilton 'drop' incidents at the same circuit spring to mind.

[Dutton]

The Schumacher-push is a great example of where the (new to that season) rules played out. In previous seasons, by the letter of the law, he would have then been excluded: however, the new rules for that season made such a push (without exclusion) absolutely acceptable.

I did not like this situation, and I do not like it now. If you have messed up enough to need a push, then you should be disqualified. It is OK to be moved out of the way, but you should be disqualified thereafter.

The rules did not dictate then, nor (I believe) do they now.

The Hamilton-drop is, to pardon the phrase, an extension of this idea. He may have been "craned" rather than "pushed", but it is the concept of outside assistance being permissible (in the subjective judgment of relative danger).

I consider it all a folly.

Either allow aided recovery in all its forms, or make any such help a DQ scenario.

Anything else just begs for subjectivism.

[tristancliffe]

F1 has never been 'road relevant'. It would not benefit either side to force it to attempt to be so.

[browney]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Good point. I think anti-stall shouldn't be permitted. In some way it just another driver aid.

I would agree except that I'm fairly sure that the cars don't have traditional style clutches any more. I can imagine it'd be a bit tough trying to steer, avoiding a crash after a mistake while also pressing a button on the wheel.

As for getting a push, I'd rather see 20 cars still in the race. There are not enough cars in the race to begin with! If you need a push, you have already lost a lot of time due to what must have been a relativly minor mistake (given how the cars fall apart easily when crashing), that's punishment enough.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by browney

(given how the cars fall apart easily when crashing).

Coulthard has proved this time and again.I think he's actually now the FIAs official 'crash test dummy'.

I had forgotten that clutches were now on steering wheels.......they still have steering wheels don't they?