Blue Flags... Keep Them Or Get Rid Of Them?

[HandyNZL 1]

So you got over Scott Speed then, and you must actually be sleeping again to be in fear of losing sleep over Kimi...

[yurp 0]

Athletics. In the 10.000m races ocassionaly happens that some runners are lapped. When that happens, slower guy moves to the outer track especially if he is caught while in the curved part. If slower guy does not do that it is considered as rude and unproffesional behavior.

Very good point and it deserves an answer...

I think Handy asked a diverting question here and somewhat shot himself in the foot - oops.

You are entirely correct, but there's a few differences that I'd like to point out having not asked Handy's original question myself - the backmarkers don't have to significantly slow down and compromise their own race in this instance, the slowing down does not provide the potential for crashes, track atheletes do not have to rely on prize money and sponsors to fund their development. As long as they are amongst the best few in their country, they'll be alright.

...you completely missed the joke between Adam and I...

He did - nevermind my friend - we can't all be as hilariously witty as you and I.

I personally like the blue flag as a warning and not a law.

If we are to have blue flags (which of course we will) - then I agree. A blue flag should just be a heads up warning - "be aware you have a faster car coming up behind".

All that said, though, the blue flag rules will be the same next year as they are this year. I won't lose much sleep over it.

Indeed.

Like I said -

It's safer to have every car running at a consistent pace and not slowing down and speeding up depending on where they think anther car might want to pass.

It is better viewing to see supremely fast cars finding a way past much slower ones rather than having them pull out of the way.

It is better for the lower teams not to be forced to compromise their own races and therefore improve their chances of better results and sponsorship and therefore development.

i.e. - If you want the worst cars to get faster - then give them a chance to race. If you want the bottom drivers to improve their racecraft - give them a chance to do so.

[KoolMonkey 0]

I hate seeing cars slow down to a crawl, or jumping the curb and just sitting there while another car passes them, then they hit the accelerator and continue on with their race. It's absurb. For every point that someone can bring up to say it's safer, I can say the same about a car not slowing down. As a fan, it looks stupid to see it on screen. And for the drivers in those teams, they are already fighting with badly handling cars, meager funding and basic setups.

I'm of the belief most people want equality in F1. If blue flags are there to help the faster cars, who or what helps the slower cars? By making the slower cars slow down considerably, it's actually making hte problem worse, since some would be losing a huge amount of time each lap to slowdown and let a faster car past.

We all want more passing in F1, maybe things should start here. Let the faster cars pass, and make the blue flags an FYI to the driver, not a mandatory instruction to pull over and have a cup of tea. Thus the driver can decide to slowdown, or keep racing their own race.

[Fwon 0]

"Not enough passing in F1" is a totally valid argument. However here are a couple of additional points:

1. Is it fair to have the a "Lotus train" for say 40 laps of the Monaco/Singapore/Budapest GP? There would not be much excitement nor would it be particularly safe.

2. Is it fair for the top teams to spend millions, only to have its race ruined by a backmarker?

3. Is it fair for YOUR favourite driver (whoever that may be) to miss out on a WDC because it was held up by a slower car?

I have been following Webber for his entire GP career from Minardi to RBR and have witnessed his highs and many lows. Part of me would have died if his car did not make it to the end of the Singapore GP. Sneaky little Hamilton would never have had a look in if it wasn't that HRT. The McLarens were 2 seconds off the pace at one point. It just does not seem fair as a fan.

Looking at the bigger picture, I do agree that something needs to be done about the lack of overtaking in F1. Smaller rear wings and a focus on aero have not made a significant impact. But I really don't think getting rid of Blue Flags (or making them optional) is the correct solution. Too much is at stake here.

[Eric 0]

1. Is it fair to have the a "Lotus train" for say 40 laps of the Monaco/Singapore/Budapest GP? There would not be much excitement nor would it be particularly safe.

2. Is it fair for the top teams to spend millions, only to have its race ruined by a backmarker?

3. Is it fair for YOUR favourite driver (whoever that may be) to miss out on a WDC because it was held up by a slower car?

1. Yes, that is fair. If the tracks are so poor that faster cars can't pass slower cars, well, that's not the slower cars' fault. A train is perfectly safe; chop-blocks, careless maneuvers, and total unawareness are unsafe, but blue flags or not, those will always be penalized.

2. Yes, that is fair. The teams choose to spend the money and agree to participate under the FIA's regulations. If the FIA lets a backmarker impede them, well, tough crap. They agree to be subject to the FIA's judgment, and the FIA judged. Don't like it, don't play. Build a bigger lead next time, or hire a driver who can get around backmarkers more easily, or just recognize that there will always be things outside of your control in life, and if you're meant to win, you'll find a way. It's an insult to win when the rules were in your favor.

3. Yes, that is fair. Any driver has the chance for that to happen, and any driver knows that it might happen. Should they require tire changes the instant rain falls? After all, Glock didn't change his, and it cost Massa a WDC. That was fair, yes? The driver can either build a bigger cushion beforehand, learn to overtake, or just accept that it wasn't meant to be. And just because a rule would force slow cars to move out of the way does not mean slow cars would move out of the way. It doesn't change the situation if you lose the WDC and the driver who cost you it is fined or has to start 5 places back next race or DQ'd or whatever: you still lost the WDC.

Fairness is letting everyone play under the same rules, and all the competitors agreeing to play under those rules. There's an equal opportunity for anyone to get screwed over, and therefore, it is fair, even if it doesn't actually happen to everyone. The best will win, the others will lose. There's nothing unfortunate or unfair about that. Until Disney buys an F1 team, the sport may as well reflect the real world.

[yurp 0]

"Not enough passing in F1" is a totally valid argument. However here are a couple of additional points:

1. Is it fair to have the a "Lotus train" for say 40 laps of the Monaco/Singapore/Budapest GP? There would not be much excitement nor would it be particularly safe.

2. Is it fair for the top teams to spend millions, only to have its race ruined by a backmarker?

3. Is it fair for YOUR favourite driver (whoever that may be) to miss out on a WDC because it was held up by a slower car?

I have been following Webber for his entire GP career from Minardi to RBR and have witnessed his highs and many lows. Part of me would have died if his car did not make it to the end of the Singapore GP. Sneaky little Hamilton would never have had a look in if it wasn't that HRT. The McLarens were 2 seconds off the pace at one point. It just does not seem fair as a fan.

Looking at the bigger picture, I do agree that something needs to be done about the lack of overtaking in F1. Smaller rear wings and a focus on aero have not made a significant impact. But I really don't think getting rid of Blue Flags (or making them optional) is the correct solution. Too much is at stake here.

yes, yes and yes

1. Yes, that is fair. If the tracks are so poor that faster cars can't pass slower cars, well, that's not the slower cars' fault. A train is perfectly safe; chop-blocks, careless maneuvers, and total unawareness are unsafe, but blue flags or not, those will always be penalized.

2. Yes, that is fair. The teams choose to spend the money and agree to participate under the FIA's regulations. If the FIA lets a backmarker impede them, well, tough crap. They agree to be subject to the FIA's judgment, and the FIA judged. Don't like it, don't play. Build a bigger lead next time, or hire a driver who can get around backmarkers more easily, or just recognize that there will always be things outside of your control in life, and if you're meant to win, you'll find a way. It's an insult to win when the rules were in your favor.

3. Yes, that is fair. Any driver has the chance for that to happen, and any driver knows that it might happen. Should they require tire changes the instant rain falls? After all, Glock didn't change his, and it cost Massa a WDC. That was fair, yes? The driver can either build a bigger cushion beforehand, learn to overtake, or just accept that it wasn't meant to be. And just because a rule would force slow cars to move out of the way does not mean slow cars would move out of the way. It doesn't change the situation if you lose the WDC and the driver who cost you it is fined or has to start 5 places back next race or DQ'd or whatever: you still lost the WDC.

Fairness is letting everyone play under the same rules, and all the competitors agreeing to play under those rules. There's an equal opportunity for anyone to get screwed over, and therefore, it is fair, even if it doesn't actually happen to everyone. The best will win, the others will lose. There's nothing unfortunate or unfair about that. Until Disney buys an F1 team, the sport may as well reflect the real world.

damn you ernie!

*shakes fist in dramatic fashion*

My reaons differe slightly though...

Backmarkers help and hinder fast cars in equal measure. One driver's loss is another's gain. When Webber has been aided by backmarkers slowing cars ahead of him, did Webber fans complain? Backmarkers are part of F1. Eliminate everyone apart from those who will last the race on the lead lap and we're down to processional races of 14 or so cars. Not what I want to see. Give them the time to develop race and they will improve or fold if they fail. Don't increase the likelyihood of them failing by compromising their every race in favour of the guys who have the millions already.

If I ran F1 I'd listen less to the top teams and more to the minows - they're the ones that need the help to survive in the sport and if they can improve the whole field becomes more competitive and we get better racing rather then the same few teams competing for the titles year after year because the have the most funding and the most say in how the sport is run.

[Fwon 0]

If I ran F1 I'd listen less to the top teams and more to the minows - they're the ones that need the help to survive in the sport and if they can improve the whole field becomes more competitive and we get better racing rather then the same few teams competing for the titles year after year because the have the most funding and the most say in how the sport is run.

True - F1 should place a greater emphasis on helping the smaller teams and rookie drivers. Funding is based on points, and if the smaller teams can't score points, then they will continue to struggle. However, the HRT and Virgin cars, when they started at the beginning of the year, were no faster than GP2 cars.

Blue flags must stay, as long as my two favourite drivers (Webber and Alonso) are fighting for the WDC - because of course, the world revolves around me

[zanet 0]

I say - "loose blue flags"!

Why?

I remember how it made racing a lot closer in the years of Senna when blue flags meant nothing

eg you could have 20 blue flags waived and there was no penalty

what this did is as the leader starts lapping 2nd place would be in a postion to challenge for the lead - gave a lot more opportunities for overtaking

[blackpebel 0]

No, they want a fair chance and a less compromised race by not having to slow on the straights. They are not allowed to block. They would still get a blue flag as the true meaning of it is that a faster car is coming up on you and likely to pass. They will not block - just maintain their driving line, and it will be the onus of the faster car to get around them.

Respect.

But its not right to think that slower cars would make it that easy given a choice, and that's why the rule because its practical.

The funny thing is, that one of the best overtakes in recent history was Hakkinen on Schumacher using Zonta as a mobile chicane. It's moment's like that that show a drivers real skill level - picking the exact right thing to do, knowing how the other car is compromised for a split moment. Then that car that was previously infront, now has to work harder to regain their previous position(s). A free pass past a back marker just adds to processional racing.

I loved it too

And Mika made that move to overtake Micheal, and not to overtake a back marker. It was exceptionally good, because it was done while fighting for the race lead, and not to lap someone.

People that are for blue flags telling people to move over are more likely to be fans of a driver or team, than of motorsport as a whole. I'd rather the show improved and away from processional racing than have a rule that benefits some drivers and compromises others. F1 did not used to have this rule. And when they didn't have this rule, they didn't have processional races. I'm not saying that this rule is the only reason they now have processional races, but it sure as hell is a mitigating factor.

I personally would like to see the quality of motor-sport improve ahead of the order, then have a race where slower cars 'will not block - maintain their driving line - and let lead driver overtake.'

And on the subject of "cut and paste" A1 cars....would just have to say that EVERY open wheel formula apart from Formula Ford, Karting and F1 and um....um....um....um......have one make cars....hence FORMULA racing. (And funny thing with FFord is that Honda is starting to supply engines in the US now.) So don't go bashing it.

The thing with F1 is that there is a rule saying teams must make their own designed cars and this is unique in top flight motorsport. It is their point of difference. It means F1 is more than just a good driver.

Yes F1 is different then other form's of racing. The development is a part of what makes F1 F1.

Again, I'm sorry that it seemed like i'm bashing other motor-sport's, i don't mean to do that. I only wanted to defend the comparison being made between F1 and other's, because its different. And its different to such a level that their is a gap of 5-6 between car's. And with such a huge difference it is hard to not expect the lap below car to move across, because their are other cars faster by 5-6 sec who would be approaching them.

[blackpebel 0]

If the slower driver wants to be courteous, well, that's his/her choice.

The option of 'choosing' to block a faster car is exactly what is excluded.

Given the freedom, someone can also kill others out of personal vengeance, rob a bank, steal a car, anyone can do that given a freedom, if their are no rules to restrict such a mis conduct, but would that be fair?

Its not just the driver, but his pit crew too, who would advice him to not be courteous(given a choice), and driver would have to follow what they say if their are no rules.

[blackpebel 0]

1. Yes, that is fair. If the tracks are so poor that faster cars can't pass slower cars, well, that's not the slower cars' fault. A train is perfectly safe; chop-blocks, careless maneuvers, and total unawareness are unsafe, but blue flags or not, those will always be penalized.

I'd say its not fair. Its not the tracks that are poor, if it was so it would have happened only once in a while on tracks that don't allow overtaking. The slower cars are really slow, nearly by 5-6 sec per lap, that by any racing standards is slow. And its not the faster cars fault that it is able to overlap the slower cars in almost every race.

2. Yes, that is fair. The teams choose to spend the money and agree to participate under the FIA's regulations. If the FIA lets a backmarker impede them, well, tough crap. They agree to be subject to the FIA's judgment, and the FIA judged. Don't like it, don't play. Build a bigger lead next time, or hire a driver who can get around backmarkers more easily, or just recognize that there will always be things outside of your control in life, and if you're meant to win, you'll find a way. It's an insult to win when the rules were in your favor.

The bigger teams already have good cars, they are also able to build a big enough gap to reach the tale of slow drivers, and drivers are capable enough to overtake, that's all is evident.... But if blue flags are not considered(the way they are now) the slow cars might just foolishly try a blocking maneuver(which can be investigated of-course), and take out the lead car who was fighting for points. After the investigation the 'slower' car, maybe handed a penalty(drive through, stop-go, missing out the next race) so in turn it won't do them any harm unless the penalty is monetary.(because they are last in the race as it is, and probably start next race at the end) it does make a difference to them because they are not fighting for points, but just to make sure they are able to earn a bit more.

And just because a rule would force slow cars to move out of the way does not mean slow cars would move out of the way. It doesn't change the situation if you lose the WDC and the driver who cost you it is fined or has to start 5 places back next race or DQ'd or whatever: you still lost the WDC.

Exactly my point, And that's why the rule has been implemented, so that the slow drivers cannot change the course of the race.

3. Yes, that is fair. Any driver has the chance for that to happen, and any driver knows that it might happen. Should they require tire changes the instant rain falls? After all, Glock didn't change his, and it cost Massa a WDC. That was fair, yes?

Rain cannot be controlled by showing flags, or making rules so that their are no races in rain, its natural, if its bound to happen, it will. Drivers cannot complaint the change in position after rain hit's.

But they can complaint against a foul play from another driver not adhering to rules(Which includes Blue flag as well), which needs to be followed.

Fairness is letting everyone play under the same rules, and all the competitors agreeing to play under those rules.

This is happening already.

There's an equal opportunity for anyone to get screwed over, and therefore, it is fair, even if it doesn't actually happen to everyone.

No. By saying 'let just go with whatever happens' wont do any good. The slower cars instead would get an unfair opportunity of screwing all other car's that are faster then them, and would get a away with it.

[blackpebel 0]

My reaons differe slightly though...

Backmarkers help and hinder fast cars in equal measure. One driver's loss is another's gain. When Webber has been aided by backmarkers slowing cars ahead of him, did Webber fans complain? Backmarkers are part of F1. Eliminate everyone apart from those who will last the race on the lead lap and we're down to processional races of 14 or so cars. Not what I want to see.

I would rather like to see people fighting for better positions(someone like kubica), then fighting to get ahead of someone who is already a lap down. In the greed of getting more overtaking action it's not fair to help ruin someone's race, that's not safe, and on a track like monaco an accident of such sort can also lead to more then one(faster car) to face an accident, because someone wanted to defend going a lap down.

Give them the time to develop race and they will improve or fold if they fail. Don't increase the likelyihood of them failing by compromising their every race in favour of the guys who have the millions already.

The guy's who spend millions have the millions to spend, and have proven to use these millions for making better car's. Good sponsors trust them for their past history of performance. If a new team is a able to give good results(without getting help, and on their own), they too would get better sponsorship.

If I ran F1 I'd listen less to the top teams and more to the minows - they're the ones that need the help to survive in the sport and if they can improve the whole field becomes more competitive and we get better racing rather then the same few teams competing for the titles year after year because the have the most funding and the most say in how the sport is run.

If you think that faster car's need to do it on their own, then slower car's too need to develop on their own, theirs no need to get help.

Look at force India, they started from zilch, media made a joke of them, but they stayed in the sport and improved on their own by getting enough wind tunnel testing. Brawn took over a slow car, but came up with a diffuser that worked wonders for them. Its a dog eat dog world and no one would help anyone without getting something in return.

[blackpebel 0]

My view on the whole thing that we are discussing:

I and the ones defending the blue flag, might not seem logical to others who would like to have the rules changed. But this is something which already has been debated and acknowledged by FIA for F1, and me and Fwon or few others are defending something which already exists.

We all might go around discussing this some more, but for me their is no point, because FIA is already doing what i think should be done.

[HandyNZL 1]

I loved it too

And Mika made that move to overtake Micheal, and not to overtake a back marker. It was exceptionally good, because it was done while fighting for the race lead, and not to lap someone.

Errr.....it was to lap someone...his name was Riccardo Zonta....and had he pulled to the side, then Hakkinen would never have overtaken Schumacher....at the same time....

[HandyNZL 1]

My view on the whole thing that we are discussing:

I and the ones defending the blue flag, might not seem logical to others who would like to have the rules changed. But this is something which already has been debated and acknowledged by FIA for F1, and me and Fwon or few others are defending something which already exists.

We all might go around discussing this some more, but for me their is no point, because FIA is already doing what i think should be done.

And those of us saying get rid of blue flags, actually mean, go back to the rules from about 5 or 6 years ago....which was, "hay matey pa-tatey, herr Schumacher the Red Barron is up your tailpipe...you'd better watch out!". I forget exactly when the current rule came in, but the old rule wasn't broke...Mosley just wanted to fix it, on the recommendation from Mr Todt that Herr Schumacher was under threat from Mr Hakkinen when they caught the back markers, and he might get overtaken, so if you wouldn't mind Max old chum, old friend, old can-i-like-your-a##-today, can you make a new rule to help out poor little ol' Ferrari, we are so handicapped by all the other teams sometimes being allowed to race on our tracky-wacky's, kiss, kiss, smooch, smooch, pwetty pwetty puh-lease.....

The Hakkinen move on Schumacher around Zonta is just such a perfect example of how the chasing car uses lap traffic...it's not about worrying about passing the lap traffic, as you refer to, it's about managing the lap traffic to keep others behind, or to manage lap traffic to gain an advantage by placing your car in the right spot at the right time.

If the blue flag rule in it's current guise wasn't there, then you would not see team mates follow each other, as we just had Webber follow Vettel at Suzuka...Webber would have used the traffic when Vettel was impeded to have a crack at him and pass. Then maybe he'd pass, maybe he wouldn't, but at least there would be some action at the front....and if he did get past, then it would be Vettels turn a few laps later to have a crack at Webber when they caught the next slower cars. That, my friend, is motorsport.

And you continually go on about HRT, Virgin and Lotus as being the lapped cars...well, they are not the only ones...even cars 1-sec off the qually pace get lapped in a race.

[yurp 0]

My view on the whole thing that we are discussing:

I and the ones defending the blue flag, might not seem logical to others who would like to have the rules changed. But this is something which already has been debated and acknowledged by FIA for F1, and me and Fwon or few others are defending something which already exists.

We all might go around discussing this some more, but for me their is no point, because FIA is already doing what i think should be done.

What exactly is the point to this post?

Concerning F1 in particular...

Rules get changed and changed back all the time (look at refueling) and the lower teams must think there's a chance of a rule reversal on blue flags or they wouldn't have bought it up.

But what's more - talking more generally about the skills of debating / discussing...

The supporters of the flat Earth hypothesis never succeeded by arguing that everyone had agreed the Earth was flat already, so there was no point discussing the evidence presented in favour of this silly spherical Earth blasphemy.

If you wish to say that the discussion is pointless simply because it's out of our hands, then why do we discuss 99.9999% of the stuff we do here? And why would anyone take part in any conversation on this forum? We could write - "There's no point talking about who will win, because what will happen will happen." or "There's no point discussing the legality of so and so's overtaking move and the penalty given by the stewards because what happened, happened." or "There's no point talking about drivers moving teams for 2011, because they'll do what they will do." Of course these statements are correct, but how dull that would be.

[HandyNZL 1]

What exactly is the point to this post?

Concerning F1 in particular...

Rules get changed and changed back all the time (look at refueling) and the lower teams must think there's a chance of a rule reversal on blue flags or they wouldn't have bought it up.

But what's more - talking more generally about the skills of debating / discussing...

The supporters of the flat Earth hypothesis never succeeded by arguing that everyone had agreed the Earth was flat already, so there was no point discussing the evidence presented in favour of this silly spherical Earth blasphemy.

If you wish to say that the discussion is pointless simply because it's out of our hands, then why do we discuss 99.9999% of the stuff we do here? And why would anyone take part in any conversation on this forum? We could write - "There's no point talking about who will win, because what will happen will happen." or "There's no point discussing the legality of so and so's overtaking move and the penalty given by the stewards because what happened, happened." or "There's no point talking about drivers moving teams for 2011, because they'll do what they will do." Of course these statements are correct, but how dull that would be.

oh..sorry...you were saying....?

[JHS 1]

I don't see why they shouldn't get out of the way when a blue flag is waved at them, personally.

If there was ever a situation like the Webber/Kovalainen incident we saw at Valencia, expect this time Webber was lapping Kovalainen and not just passing him, it'd just be a real shame if that moment was the moment that Webber (or whoever it happened to for that matter) lost the championship...well, I predict that that back marker would be given hell on internet forums everywhere.

If a car is miles slower, what's the point? They aren't going to achieve anything worth while trying to keep the race leader behind them or whatever, just risk not finishing the race and ruining another guy's chances. Sure, they'd get a bit of TV time, but I can't see why the risk would be worth it.

Back markers shouldn't be able to ruin a race. Like for example, there's a battle for the lead coming up behind them, they should make every effort to get out the way to let that battle go on with no problem. Sure, some people will say that Senna and some of the drivers from the sport's history were the masters in traffic and they made it their own, and it's true today that mastering traffic is probably a crucial element in becoming a good racing driver, so maybe faster drivers shouldn't be given it on a plate just because they are in a much faster car.

At the same time though, as I've said, what really is the point in ignoring the blue flags? I just can't see any point to it.

[yurp 0]

oh..sorry...you were saying....?

Hey! My answer was shorter than yours! (just a bit more boring)

[wapi 4]

Suggested reading:

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/6C308C9C62440560C125775B0043DB7A/$FILE/10.07.09_Annexe%20L%202010.pdf

page 16 article iv.2

This Appendix H of the International sporting code is applied to ALL races under FIA. So, no special rules in F1.

[KoolMonkey 0]

I don't see why they shouldn't get out of the way when a blue flag is waved at them, personally.

If there was ever a situation like the Webber/Kovalainen incident we saw at Valencia, expect this time Webber was lapping Kovalainen and not just passing him, it'd just be a real shame if that moment was the moment that Webber (or whoever it happened to for that matter) lost the championship...well, I predict that that back marker would be given hell on internet forums everywhere.

If a car is miles slower, what's the point? They aren't going to achieve anything worth while trying to keep the race leader behind them or whatever, just risk not finishing the race and ruining another guy's chances. Sure, they'd get a bit of TV time, but I can't see why the risk would be worth it.

Back markers shouldn't be able to ruin a race. Like for example, there's a battle for the lead coming up behind them, they should make every effort to get out the way to let that battle go on with no problem. Sure, some people will say that Senna and some of the drivers from the sport's history were the masters in traffic and they made it their own, and it's true today that mastering traffic is probably a crucial element in becoming a good racing driver, so maybe faster drivers shouldn't be given it on a plate just because they are in a much faster car.

At the same time though, as I've said, what really is the point in ignoring the blue flags? I just can't see any point to it.

There are safety arguments for and against concerning blue flags. But don't you feel somewhat bemused when you see a backmarker pull over onto a curb, to let a way faster car pass? I know I do. One more corner and the faster car would have passed on the straight anyway. It's not like where talking Trulli Trains™ here. Honestly I've not seen a backmarker really wreck anyones race of late. But it sure takes away from the show and spectacle of the pinnacle of motorsport, that a driver needs a blue flag in order to pass a vastly inferior car.

[JHS 1]

No, I don't feel bemused when a slow car lets a car that's a lap ahead through. It's been happening a long, long time and nobody until Branson and Tony really cared. They just accepted it.

I don't think it takes away from the show. Normally the focus of the race is the front, espacially if there's a battle going on, not the back. There's a risk if they didn't get out the way they could deprive the fans of a great battle, and when they are that far back and that slow, there's no chance they are going to win or probably even score any points, so it's pointless. There's no chance they are going to keep that guy behind as you've already mentioned, so they aren't achieving anything other than risking having an incident with that car, so why not just let them go by and concentrate on their race?

I think one of the main issues with the Kovalainen/Webber incident is that Webber was caught unaware as to how early the Lotus cars were having to brake, and the chances of that happening again if there are no blue flags is probably quite high.

For the safety aspect more than anything else, they need to stay. I think that's partly why blue flags exist anyway, a car going slowly and unaware or simply ignorant of the faster car being in a lappery situation can only lead to bad news.

And I think you could be talking "Trulli Trains". Look at Singapore. Glock didn't pit under the first safety car, others did, and despite the likes of a Force India, Williams, Renault and Ferrari behind, they couldn't find their way past. It was a street circuit, but still, if a lead battle came up on a slower car and there were no blue flags meaning we ended up in a similar situation, it'd certainly make the race a lot duller and processional compared to if they just got out the way and let the lead drivers go through and continue their battle.

I just find it midly annoying that two newbies rack up in the sport and think they can change the rules that have existed for God knows how many years. I bet if they ever build faster cars capable of wins/podiums and they get their way with this and then end up in a situation where they can't get past traffic they'll change their tune. They should just shut up, put up and get on with building a faster car or get out.

[KoolMonkey 0]

No, I don't feel bemused when a slow car lets a car that's a lap ahead through. It's been happening a long, long time and nobody until Branson and Tony really cared. They just accepted it.

I don't think it takes away from the show. Normally the focus of the race is the front, espacially if there's a battle going on, not the back. There's a risk if they didn't get out the way they could deprive the fans of a great battle, and when they are that far back and that slow, there's no chance they are going to win or probably even score any points, so it's pointless. There's no chance they are going to keep that guy behind as you've already mentioned, so they aren't achieving anything other than risking having an incident with that car, so why not just let them go by and concentrate on their race?

I think one of the main issues with the Kovalainen/Webber incident is that Webber was caught unaware as to how early the Lotus cars were having to brake, and the chances of that happening again if there are no blue flags is probably quite high.

For the safety aspect more than anything else, they need to stay. I think that's partly why blue flags exist anyway, a car going slowly and unaware or simply ignorant of the faster car being in a lappery situation can only lead to bad news.

And I think you could be talking "Trulli Trains". Look at Singapore. Glock didn't pit under the first safety car, others did, and despite the likes of a Force India, Williams, Renault and Ferrari behind, they couldn't find their way past. It was a street circuit, but still, if a lead battle came up on a slower car and there were no blue flags meaning we ended up in a similar situation, it'd certainly make the race a lot duller and processional compared to if they just got out the way and let the lead drivers go through and continue their battle.

I just find it midly annoying that two newbies rack up in the sport and think they can change the rules that have existed for God knows how many years. I bet if they ever build faster cars capable of wins/podiums and they get their way with this and then end up in a situation where they can't get past traffic they'll change their tune. They should just shut up, put up and get on with building a faster car or get out.

The Kovalainen/Webber incident never would have happened under a rule change of having no blue flags. I know it wasn't a blue flag situation, but it might as well have been as Kovi pulled up for Webber to pass. Now under no blue flags, Webber would have known he'd have to pass him on his own merit. And Kovi would have been free to race at speed his own car. Thus Webber would have passed him anyway on a straight or under braking quite easily and with little to no hindrance to his own race.

The thing is with the slower cars, having to pull over for each driver means yes they still carry on with their own race, but it means they loose even more considerable time. The slower teams are no less important than the stronger ones. In fact they do it tougher and from things I've read in the past, work just as hard if not more. They don't have the resources, the money, the same number of employees, or lots of spare parts etc. So in my view, it's like kicking someone when they are down. I don't like the fact they are so slow, but I cannot support something that makes them slower either. It's a sad state when these teams try to enter F1, then get sand thrown in their face and told they are not needed. F1 needs them and so do all other forms of motorsport.

It's quite possible that the lower teams have been feeling things for a long time, and it took some new teams with Team leaders who are not affraid to speak up, to bring this into the public light. Just because they are new, doesn't mean they might not have something to add or a different perspective on things. I could argue that Ferrari's longevity in the sport has caused harm in other facets as well, with team orders, rule changes, vetos etc. Complacency is far more dangerous than being a newbie.

[JHS 1]

I have to disagree. If that was a blue flag situation and there were no blue flags, it would make an incident like that even more likely. With no blue flags, it means Kovalainen doesn't have to get out the way, meaning that it's effectively for position, so he'd probably race Webber, and, as I've said, it's hard enough to pass even the slowest cars in F1 currently, even with the huge speed differences and completely different braking areas for the faster cars/slower cars.

As previously mentioned on here, perhaps then, when you are lapped, your race is over. Because clearly nothing is going to happen that will enable you to win the race or even score any points. I give the new teams credit for having a go, they've come into F1 in really difficult circumstances, yet I was under the ellusion that by this point in the season, they would actually have improved somewhat. It jsut shows what a difficult sport F1 is, but really, at the moment, they are the side show for an incredible, enthralling championship, and they shouldn't have the ability of possibly ruining one of the contender's hopes.

Every other new team that has come into the sport in recent years, like Force India, Toro Rosso, etc, knew that they'd probably not be on the pace in their first season and hence be lapped quite a bit. I never heard them moaning about it, they got on with it and built a faster car for up coming seasons, and look where they are now, greatly improved.

[HandyNZL 1]

Toro Ross and Force India were never new teams....they morphed out of other old teams (Minardi and Jordan)....you can't use them to compare to the three truly new teams of this year, all of whom had less than 6-months to make the grid.