Ecclestone: I could be forced out

[cosworth151]

This could be promising. I'm trying not to get my hopes up, though. Bernie has come back more than Freddie Kruger.

Bernie Ecclestone has admitted that he would likely be removed from his role as Formula 1 commercial chief if he faces further action over the Gerhard Gribkowsky bribery case. I wonder if it would take a conviction to dislodge him, or if an indictment would be enough.

http://www.racer.com/ecclestone-i-could-be-forced-out/article/274304/?DCMP=EMC-RACER_DAILY&spMailingID=5364951&spUserID=MjMyNjk2NjU2MQS2&spJobID=61977148&spReportId=NjE5NzcxNDgS1

[Scott]

Funny the two different takes.  While Bernie is talking about what will probably happen which has absolutely nothing to do with the good of the sport, Luca is talking about Bernie realizing he should step down for the good of the sport - fat chance. 

Luca fails to realize also that the entire case is about scandal/bribery in the sale of F1.  How can Bernie stepping down help keep the sport out of the scandal?  It's what it is all about. 

[Ian]

You can't talk about scandal's Scott, not with all those chicken feathers in your hotel room in Milan.   

[Scott]

The chicken feathers are easy to explain, it's the corn syrup I'd rather not talk about.   

[F1fanaticBD]

The chicken feathers are easy to explain, it's the corn syrup I'd rather not talk about.   

 

[Irisado]

The day Ecclestone is forced out, is the day that put all the gravel traps back in on every circuit, and the cars go back to the reliability levels of the 1990s and early 2000s.  I'd love all three, but none of them will come to pass.

[John S]

The day Ecclestone is forced out, is the day that put all the gravel traps back in on every circuit, and the cars go back to the reliability levels of the 1990s and early 2000s.  I'd love all three, but none of them will come to pass.

You've got the wrong man over the gravel trap issue Irisado, it's the FIA, through first Mosely and now Todt, responsible for the plethora of huge run off areas.

Oh and I hate the tarmac run offs just as much as you by the way.

I think reliability issues are unlikely to ever really return though. All vehicles, especially road and race cars, have benefitted so much from new technologies and quality controls that they are unrecognisable from cars of 20 or 30 years ago. However the new era in 2014 could throw up some unexpected reliability issues, for a while, as the engine builders get to grips with making the new 1.6 turbos produce sustained top end power in racing conditions.

 

 

    

[lkjohnson1950]

There were a number of serious accidents with cars that "skipped" over the sand or gravel in the traps and impacted the barriers at high speed. The drivers felt paved runoffs would give them the opportunity to use the brakes and avoid the impacts. Perhaps they should have a penalty box right in the runoff. Any car with all four wheels off the track has to stop for 10 seconds, or be called to the pits for a 20 second penalty if they fail to stop. Or paint the first 1/3rd with slippery paint?

[Scott]

The day Ecclestone is forced out, is the day that put all the gravel traps back in on every circuit, and the cars go back to the reliability levels of the 1990s and early 2000s.  I'd love all three, but none of them will come to pass.

You've got the wrong man over the gravel trap issue Irisado, it's the FIA, through first Mosely and now Todt, responsible for the plethora of huge run off areas.

I think he just means that the likelihood is the same for all three happening, not that one has anything to do with the others (or specifically, that Ecclestone has anything to do with big tarmac runoffs). 

I kind of like Lonny's idea of a penalty stop  .  Perhaps have a secondary line - big fat red/orange one that nobody can miss or mistake in the out of bounds area of the runoff, maybe about 2-3m or so beyond the racetrack (to allow for minor mistakes that wouldn't have resulted in the cars being beached before anyhow) - and when a car has 4 wheels over that line, then they are essentially in the gravel and must go immediately for a drivethru or stop-n-go in the pits.  It would also stop drivers from straight-lining a large runoff area and actually gain an advantage over the cars still on track. 

I had two problems with the gravel traps though - firstly that I've seen way too many scary accidents that send the car airborne (or skipping over the gravel like Lonny said - without losing any speed).  Secondly it is always such a shame if a driver is beached for either a minor mistake or as a result of being forced off the track.  I think a penalty, but still being able to continue is a better policy.

[Irisado]

I think he just means that the likelihood is the same for all three happening, not that one has anything to do with the others (or specifically, that Ecclestone has anything to do with big tarmac runoffs).

That's precisely it .  I'm sorry if that wasn't clear from my post. 

In my entire time of watching F1 (1995-present), I've never, as far as I can recall, seen a terrifying accident involving a gravel trap.  The only really horrendous accidents I've seen are when cars have hit concrete walls, usually by crossing the grass, or spearing straight off the road (Panis and Kubica 1997 and 2007 Canadian Grand Prix spring to mind).

[Scott]

I'm not going to try to give you a list of when's - just don't have time at the moment.  But I do recall more than a few times when a car entered the gravel sideways, it ended up grabbing the wheels and turning it over.  Here is one example.  Tarmac would not have had the same result.

[Monty]

Scott is of course correct. Gravel has caused some massive accidents, it is also unpredictable. I remember going into a gravel trap when I was racing in the wet and finding no retardation at all; yet earlier the same day when it was dry, cars were stopping within a few metres if they went into the same gravel trap.
I think run-off areas are the safe solution and in many ways it is good that someones race isn't finished if they are 'accidentally' forced off at a corner.
The problem comes when drivers start to use run-off areas strategically.

[Jericoke]

Scott is of course correct. Gravel has caused some massive accidents, it is also unpredictable. I remember going into a gravel trap when I was racing in the wet and finding no retardation at all; yet earlier the same day when it was dry, cars were stopping within a few metres if they went into the same gravel trap.
I think run-off areas are the safe solution and in many ways it is good that someones race isn't finished if they are 'accidentally' forced off at a corner.
The problem comes when drivers start to use run-off areas strategically.

The problem F1 has with gravel traps is when a car is inverted, the roll hoop becomes useless, and the entire weight of the car (and any that might be on top) is on the neck of the driver.  I believe it was Sato who ended up in that situation, millimetres from a disaster, where they decided gravel traps weren't the safest way to go.

Obviously F1 will never be 100% safe, and any rule change is bound to have unintended consequences.  Introducing an automatic drive through penalty for a car that goes off track sounds great, until you see drivers forcing their competitors off track.  By the time the marshalls get around to punishing the true offender, the automatic penalty has already been applied.

[Irisado]

Scott: I remember watching the 1998 Canadian Grand Prix, and I wasn't at all worried about Wurz's accident then.  The video hasn't changed my view fifteen years later.

The gravel wasn't responsible for that.  His car was already on its side, and would have probably flipped over in any case, due to the contact with the Prost cars.

Besides, is it really inconceivable that they can't design better gravel traps now than those which they used to use?  Combine better gravel traps with tech-pro tyre barriers, and job done in my opinion.

Perhaps Ecclestone could spend his money on that to spice up the racing ?