Should Charlie Whiting resign?

SPASKIS

Today, and once again we have been detracted from another race start and 5 laps under wet conditions. By the time, the SC has entered pits some cars have stopped for intermediate tires.

I wonder why do they bring full wet tires. Only for driving behind the SC. RIDICULOUS.

Several laps before, both the first and the last driver of the grid were reporting perfect conditions for racing.

As said, it is not the first time this happens in the last years and it willbe like that meanwhile the decision of deploying the SC is taken by Charlie Whiting.

So if you think that he should resign feel free to post and to sign this petition.

https://www.change.org/p/fia-fom-di...ish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-reason_msg





Enviado desde mi ONE A2001 mediante Tapatalk
 
And give Bernie even more power? No thanks!

BTW, this should probably be in the off-topic forum under the F1 thread.
 
Resign? That sure escalated quickly. ;)

There's a reason why they start behind the SC when there's standing water on the track.
This is what it looked like last time they attempted a normal start in such conditions:


The purist arguments don't really hold up when you look objectively at what's at stake.
Blind luck that everyone walked away from that one, marshals and spectators included.
 
It really doesn't matter if 95% if the track is ready to race, as long as the 5% is not. We saw a few aqua planings even longer in to the race, so as much as we all just want the racing to get on, there ARE safety to take into account.
 
Hello
And we all know drivers want to race and will risk it all to do so.
And also they are not seeing the whole track and are not taking everything in to account.
It is one thing to put your self at risk but not others.
And whiting takes everyone in to consideration.
That is his job and he is doing a good job.

What would you say or do if he did listen to that driver and said go race and they ended up crashing and getting hurt or worse ?

Ruben
 
Last edited:
I agree with Spaskis, what's the point in wet weather tyres if they don't race on them?
These drivers have worked their way up from karting, through various motorsport classes, driven in all weather conditions, and then when they reach F1 they are wrapped in cotton wool and do not get to demonstrate their full skills.
It's a joke when the SC is brought in just as everyone is thinking of changing to inter or even slicks.

If there are still random pools of water that are too bad to drive on then the track drainage needs to be sorted at those places.

The start of the race, under SC, is ruined. Just my opinion.
 
Meh, the race was still enjoyable and there have been a LOT of spins and errors induced by wet and pools, one of the problems is that setups can't be changed if saturday is dry then sunday rains, cars can easily get undrivable if there is too much still water on the track. In the "good old days" they could change the setup on the grid.
 
hexagramme said:
Resign? That sure escalated quickly. ;)

There's a reason why they start behind the SC when there's standing water on the track.
This is what it looked like last time they attempted a normal start in such conditions:


The purist arguments don't really hold up when you look objectively at what's at stake.
Blind luck that everyone walked away from that one, marshals and spectators included.
Click to expand...

Technicaly speaking this was not at the start of the race but after the first corner. Throughout the race such accidents can happen aswell when cars are driving in a pack. Such mass accidents even happened in dry conditions. Tbh, I find it much more dangerous when cars get on the S/F line on behind one another at full speed with basicly no visibility than with a standing start. In case someone spins at the exit towards the S/F line there is high protential for a real carnage in such conditions.

I wouldn't got as far as resigning Chalie Whiting from his duties, but the rules and execution of them recently have been a farce and to some extend fraud perpetrated on the customer. It's not just the F1 race. The Porsche cup started behind the SC aswell. In this case I wonder wether they should think about some of the generals rules twice and avoid racing open air completely. Why do they even produce rain tyres for millions of bucks per year?
 
Well, if a car up front fails the standing start, it will be near impossible to spot through the spray by those coming from the rear of the grid = potential catastrophy!
 
kmw said:
I agree with Spaskis, what's the point in wet weather tyres if they don't race on them?
These drivers have worked their way up from karting, through various motorsport classes, driven in all weather conditions, and then when they reach F1 they are wrapped in cotton wool and do not get to demonstrate their full skills.
It's a joke when the SC is brought in just as everyone is thinking of changing to inter or even slicks.

If there are still random pools of water that are too bad to drive on then the track drainage needs to be sorted at those places.

The start of the race, under SC, is ruined. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agree wholeheartedly
 
The safety car usage at the last race seems to be the least of F1"s problems. How can such awesome cars produce such lifeless racing?

There are usually a few highlights here and there but most of each race is sterile at best.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk 2
 
After like 2 laps behind the SC people were already ready for inter tires, no reason to keep it that long. This is getting ridiculous
 
WiZPER said:
Well, if a car up front fails the standing start, it will be near impossible to spot through the spray by those coming from the rear of the grid = potential catastrophy!
Click to expand...

Exactly, and that's why wet standing starts just don't happen anymore.
We had that exact situation at Spa back then, where everything blew up as soon as the cars were up to speed, wheels nearly went into the crowd, etc.

Of course F1 needs some risk factor, but unnecessarily stupid risks should be avoided as much as possible.
Having cars side by side, drivers completely blinded by spray, with standing water on the track is an unnecessarily stupid risk to take.
In all likelihood, in the case of a huge pile-up, every driver will walk away, probably unscathed too.
Spectators and marshals, maybe not so much.
 
A time ago, wet track would be a lot of certainty of a good race, nowadays it's a sure of dozens of laps with SC until track get dry, sad F1 times. Yes, I'm for his resigning.

If you think standing race start is dangerous, it's ok to have one lap of SC and please get it out.
 
I don't know what races you lot have been watching - all year the racing has been riveting. Yes, even yesterdays race. Good battle the entire race, Max on Nico through Becketts was outstanding, so was Nico getting past Max again later on. With plenty of hard and fair battles throughout the field. Almost every race has been like this all year, last year too. I think you guys just want to hate for hates sake.
 
Half the track was still soaked when the race went green, because only half the track was hit by the shower pre race.
The wet parts didn't dry up during those 5 SC laps.
Drivers were skidding off the track left, right and center during much of the race, there was action pretty much everywhere you looked.

So yeah, a few laps behind the SC to avoid serious pile-ups, I'm all for it.
It doesn't rob the fans of anything, other than potentially losing a big part of the field, and the likelihood of injuries/fatalities.

I guess this year's Le Mans race director should step down too, then?
He effectively turned the 24H into a 23 hour race, and actually waited to wave the green until the track was mostly bone dry. :D
 
I would like to recall that this guy didn't deploy the SC under much worse conditions than what we saw yesterday and where there was a tow truck in the gravel escapatory, which costed a life. He clearly cannot determine the real risk of a given situation.

Last week, nothing was done when 5 cars broke their suspension due to the pianos. Something could have ocurred but luckiky it didn't happen in race or who knows what could have happened.

This man's times are clearly passed. He should leave.

Enviado desde mi ONE A2001 mediante Tapatalk
 
Not know about him resining, but SC was a wrong call imo. One or two laps maybe, but I was really pissed to see it for 6 laps. It wasn't even raining when they started behind SC. Wets are totally useless atm, what a joke. If it's wet then drivers should just adapt. Accidents and spins are part of wet race, let them happen, nothing wrong in that. They should slow down enough when it's really wet, not stop racing completely.

I really don't understand those people at all who can defend what happened in this race. Suzuka was totally different, also SPA. No need to compare to this one.
 
Rubbish radio rules, unnecessary starts behind SC (as was said during race broadcast, Silverstone 2008 for example was way worse, and they raced), Suzuka 2014, and more poor decisions : Whiting should definitely retire. In fact, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a racetrack or be able to make a simple decision, as useless as he is.

Suzuka 2014, they didn't want to send a Safety Car because darkness was coming, and if there was a Safety Car, they couldn't go the distance (hence the changes of start times the following year). So they thought it was a good idea to send a crane in a well known dangerous corner. Then they blamed Jules Bianchi for not slowing down under yellow flags.
Austria 2016, qualifying session. Under double yellow flags, Hulkenberg lifted for something like 2 tenths, losing 4 kph, and it was deemed enough slowing down. Pathetic.

They want to install the stupid halo thing, but teams aren't allowed to tell drivers the brakes are dying. If Perez was injured or killed at Spielberg because of stupid radio rules, what would have happened ? FIA would have said teams agreed on this rule, so it's their fault ?

He has to retire, and he has to do it NOW, before he kills someone else.
 
hexagramme said:
Half the track was still soaked when the race went green, because only half the track was hit by the shower pre race.
The wet parts didn't dry up during those 5 SC laps.
Drivers were skidding off the track left, right and center during much of the race, there was action pretty much everywhere you looked.

So yeah, a few laps behind the SC to avoid serious pile-ups, I'm all for it.
It doesn't rob the fans of anything, other than potentially losing a big part of the field, and the likelihood of injuries/fatalities.

I guess this year's Le Mans race director should step down too, then?
He effectively turned the 24H into a 23 hour race, and actually waited to wave the green until the track was mostly bone dry. :D
Click to expand...

You quite missed the point there buddy: ofcourse the spectators get robbed with overlong SC periods. When I go to a race I pay to see racing for the foreseen race length (not just F1, also support races), and not 90 percent of it. Do the the prices get reduced by ten percent? No, most of the time they get increased by quite a margin. I can live with a few SC laps here and there, especialy after accidents, but especialy in the last races with a bit of water on the track it really got a farce. The point of F1 races is not to wait until the track gets dry. Racing is an open air event and it is dangerous at all times. Talking about racing and talking about avoiding unnecessary risks at the same time is pretty much a joke itself. Why are they even racing then? Why do they have rain tyres? It is for pure fun, entertainment (and business).

I got to tell you, when I go to a race track I am well aware of the fact that racing is dangerous, even as a spectator and that I can get injured or killed despite the fact that we have meter high catch fences and paved runoff areas bigger than football fields. Drivers were skidding off the track, so where is the problem? Drivers get off the track in dry conditions aswell and crash when they shoot over the limit, or they pile up. That's racing. Should we avoid racing in dry conditions aswell? For me it's important in racing, that the driver who adjusts his driving the best to all conditions wins. No matter wether it is raining or not. In the past, before we got those ridiciolous SC periods with wet tracks, SC or red flags were only deployed, when the wether was too bad, so that the helicopter could not fly or when the cars really couldn't drive. Hell, even MotoGP makes standing starts in rain, in much worse conditions than we had in Monaco or Silverstone. Another big problem for me is, that the competition gets influenced. The only fair starting procedure is a standing start, everything else is a mess and with bad visiblity even more dangerous. Once more, the Spa pileup did not happen because they made a standing start in wet conditions. It happened because Coulthard lost the car down to Eau Rouge and everybody after him couldn't avoid him because they were basicly at full speed. If you want to have an analalogy to that situation, watch Silverstone 1973. Fun fact: it happened in dry conditions in lap 2. Now where is the limit of safe and dangerous racing conditions?
 
You quite missed the point there buddy: ofcourse the spectators get robbed with overlong SC periods.
Click to expand...

The alternative is big accidents where a big part of the field gets wiped out, leaving fewer cars to watch for the rest of the race.
I would feel more robbed if that happened. If a repeat of Spa 1998 happened we would be left with 9 cars to watch for the rest of the race. Not cool.

When I go to a race I pay to see racing for the foreseen race length (not just F1, also support races), and not 90 percent of it.
Click to expand...
Yeah well, you can't control the weather.
With streams of standing water on track and insufficient wet tires (according to Vettel), not a lot to do other than start behind the SC and try to move the worst of the standing water.

I can live with a few SC laps here and there, especialy after accidents, but especialy in the last races with a bit of water on the track it really got a farce.
Click to expand...
There wasn't "a bit of water on the track", there was quite a lot more than that.
You saw how the cars slid around, you saw the amount of spray once the field got up to speed.
After the green flag dropped awesome racing ensued, in extremely difficult mixed conditions, half the track soaked and the other half nearly dry.
I was on the edge of my seat, I tell you that.

The point of F1 races is not to wait until the track gets dry.
Click to expand...
Well, they didn't. Not in Monaco, nor at Silverstone.

Racing is an open air event and it is dangerous at all times.
Click to expand...
Talking about racing and talking about avoiding unnecessary risks at the same time is pretty much a joke itself.
Click to expand...

Yep and nope, it's dangerous, always has been, always will be.
No need to take unnecessarily idiotic risks though. Which is also why seat belts, proper helmets, armco and catch fencing were introduced over the years.

It is for pure fun, entertainment (and business).
Click to expand...
Yep, and watching people get killed or maimed on live TV isn't fun, entertaining nor good business.

The only fair starting procedure is a standing start, everything else is a mess and with bad visiblity even more dangerous.
Click to expand...
Side by side while being completely blinded by spray is better than single file? No, it isn't.
There's a very good reason why there hasn't been a repeat of the Spa 98 pile-up.

Once more, the Spa pileup did not happen because they made a standing start in wet conditions.
Click to expand...
After La Source there were cars going two, even three wide, bunched up and completely blinded by spray.
Pretty much blinded in every direction, if not by spray then by other cars in very close proximity.
 
I am not going to depict everything. I think I made my point quite clear regarding unnecessary risks and overdone safety, especialy when this safety thinking leads to quite contrary sitations. I am still quite sure that a gravel trap would have saved Saloms life for that matter. But anyway, it was a dry track and **** happens in racing. It was a driving mistake btw, same as Bianchi who just was too damn fast under yellow flags and no HALO or anything else in the world could have saved him. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the evolution of safety in motorsport, but only when it doesn't destroy the sole of racing. When even old drivers, who raced in far more dangerous circumstances, complain about overdone safety meassurements, you know that there is something terribly wrong. The day when F1 drivers get a roof or HALO I will switch off my TV for sure. I also wouldn't go by Vettels statement has he clearly had more severe problems than other drivers. Rosberg kept the car within the white lines throughout the whole race.

And yet you didn't answer my question why MOTO GP drivers are able to start in far worse conditions without a safety car, without any crumple zone. Just take a look back at races like Donington '93 or Barcelona '96. No stupid safety car laps at the start, but pure racing right from the beginning. Despite the fact that it is a risk itself to turn laps after laps behind the safety car, as tyres get cold or people like Lewis Hamilton allmost crash into the SC as they loose concentration, and despite the fact that the risk of aquaplaning is far higher for slow driving F1 cars without the effect of downforce. And again: the Spa pile up was not caused by cars driving in the rain. Watch it again please. Coulthard spun and the cars behind him crashed into him. The rest of the race after the restart was held in similar conditions btw. Quite similar situation happened in 2012 at the start, when Alonso allmost got killed in dry conditions with good visiblity. It's just a tight spot, you know. If we start to avoid every damn little risk at all costs, we don't need to watch racing.
 
same as Bianchi who just was too damn fast under yellow flags and no HALO or anything else in the world could have saved him.
Click to expand...
Nobody is suggesting that a halo would have saved him. The halo is mainly to avoid accidents like the one that killed Justin Wilson.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the evolution of safety in motorsport, but only when it doesn't destroy the sole of racing.
Click to expand...
How exactly does a few laps of SC destroy the soul of racing? You had a long action packed race served on a silver platter last Sunday after the race went green.
Where should the line be drawn then, regarding motorsport safety? Is a single fatality once a year acceptable? Or one every other year?
Again, avoiding risks that you know sooner or later will result in a fatality is what should be pursued, always.
People don't want to see their heroes get injured or die on live TV, and sponsors will pull out if that happens.
Too much risk means no future for the sport. No matter how nostalgic people get, we will never return to the old days of racing, and that's just a fact that fans have to live with.

And again: the Spa pile up was not caused by cars driving in the rain. Watch it again please. Coulthard spun and the cars behind him crashed into him.
Click to expand...
I've watched it a thousand times over the years. 12 cars wouldn't have piled into him and each other had they not been 2-3 wide while blinded by spray.
Also the backmarkers couldn't stop in time once they knew there was trouble ahead, again because of standing water and lack of visibility.
Their brakes locked on the wet track surface as soon as they tried to avoid the carnage.
Recreate that scenario in dry conditions with full visibility and Coulthard would likely have been the only DNF in that accident.
 
What they should do is to drive a few laps behind safety car (if really neccessary), and when the worst standing water is gone, they come back to the start grid and have a normal standing start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top