What would happen if a race was stupidly slow, and only the leader did 75% for full points, while everyone else was a lap or 2 down. Would everyone get full points or only people who did the 75%?
With the size of the stands around the circuit, the chances of a car being hit even if the circuit was is pretty low. However, if it were to be, the car does not have a complete Faraday cage, so the driver could get shocked. Whether he's survive or not is another question.
Why do full wet tyres exist? Seems like a very stupid question, but whenever they are used the race is put behind the saftey car and/or red flagged until we are back in inter conditions. Why bother?
It's weird. A lot of sporting mexicans seem to go by their nicknames. Sergio perez is Checo, Javier Hernandez is Chicharito, and Carlos Vela is ****.
Full points for all. A race distance is based entirely upon its winner's completed laps. All point scoring finishers (i.e. cars still running when the winner completes his/her final lap) will be awarded points relative to the winner's points, regardless of how far behind.
Several drivers diving into the pits for inters when the safety car pulls in is surely a sign that all this H&S for wet weather is a bit too far.
Good point. But at the same time I can't help wondering how much of it is for the show, ratcheting up the tension, the suspense? "Ooh, maybe we've got another Canada on our hands", and rubbing their hands with glee. Or maybe I'm just being cynical
It is a bit of a con that we never get full wet racing but I can think of an explanation for the tyres. In a situation like yesterday (starting or restarting behind the safety car), even at safety car speeds twenty four F1 cars with full wets on will shift the water off the racing line sooner than waiting for it to dry out enough to use inters.
Malaysia's weather also got me thinking. If a race began under wet conditions and it stayed wet throughout the race, would a driver be allowed to complete the whole Grand Prix without making a pitstop? (Obviously this would be pointless if track conditions improved/worsened and new tyres were necessary).
Allowed yes, able no. Remember on the old F1 Manager game I tried a non-stop strategy at Monaco because fuel consumption was so low... forgot what an impact tyre wear had. he was lapping 20 seconds a lap off the lead pace by the end. Sort of negated the benefits I feel...
Isn't it mandatory to make a stop? Even without the two compound rule I'm sure one stop was always mandatory. Edit: No I think I'm wrong on this, don't think they made it mandatory until they banned refuelling.
When fuel runs down an appreciable level during a race, does it have room to 'slosh' about in the fuel tank and thus affect the handling/balance?
They're clever them F1 folk ain't they! But surely as the fuel goes down the space that the bag takes up becomes more empty, leaving room for the bag to manoeuvre?
I think the bag collapses as the fuel levels decrease, and that the space is packed with something to stop the bag moving about. Here's some info.
The fuel cell is made up of loads of compartments called baffles which prevent the fuel sloshing about.
