Formula One fans secretly enjoy chaos, but even we have our limits. Therefore, the carnage that ensued in both the Singapore and Japanese Grand Prix are perfect scenarios to unpack and highlight why Formula One has an undeniable wet weather problem.
For decades, fans and drivers have been at odds over wet races. During the Singapore GP, the humidity made it impossible for the track to dry out creating issues for the strategies for a number of teams. During the Japanese GP, it was easier for drivers in the front row because they didn’t have to deal with the blinding spray that 80 percent of the grid was faced with, on top of managing and adjusting the tyre strategy. On the other hand, the 80s and 90s handed us some of the best wet weather drives from legends such as Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, and Damon Hill, which fuels the criticisms that the development of cars should enhance wet weather racing, not prohibit it. It’s hard to argue against both sides of the arguments, but unfortunately, that gets us nowhere.
The biggest issue when it comes to wet weather is that it’s largely out of the hands of Formula One itself. The FIA makes the determinations as to whether it’s safe for racing, as well as the determinations to turn on performance enhancing components, such as DRS. Remember that just a few years ago, the FIA mandated the halo which was unanimously rejected by drivers and fans alike. In the years following, however, it’s proven to be one of the most life-saving, game-changing mandates in the history of the sport. Many drivers–including Lewis Hamilton and Zhou Guanyu–are alive today because of this addition.
The FIA is also wildly inconsistent when it comes to penalties for safety infractions, so more has to be done in several key areas for fans to buy what they’re selling. For example, Pierre Gasly’s near-collision with the tractor at the Japanese GP was entirely avoidable, and there’s two ways to look at it. Gasly was behind the pack but chose to gun it even though he knew the conditions weren’t safe. At the same time, as Sebastian Vettel was passing the tractor, his steering wheel still had the green light in conditions that impaired visibility. If the tractor was driving off the track that would have been one thing, but the tractor was driving on the racing line which kind of invalidates the FIA’s safety response and makes Gasly’s penalty seem like a slap in the face to the drivers. If safety is the modus operandi, then I’d like to think that the legacy of Jules Bianchi would have separate protocols in wet conditions that barred all support vehicles (except the safety car) from being on track under flagged and rainy conditions.
With that said, tyres do play a significant role in how a car performs under wet conditions, and Haas’ strategy for Mick Schumacher in the Japanese GP proved that. Instead of pulling Schumacher in to pit when other drivers were switching from full wets to intermediates, Haas left him out. He ended up finishing the Japanese GP in 17th place because he didn’t have the competitive performance advantage, despite Haas having the data to support a necessary switch.
I believe it was Will Buxton who said in one of the first seasons of Netflix’s “Drive to Survive” that rain “was the ultimate equalizer,” but I’m not sure that’s the case anymore. The cap was supposed to be the ultimate equalizer, and Max Verstappen put on a masterclass in the rain in the most superior car–arguably–in Formula One history. I’m not even sure that an “equalizer” exists in Formula One after this season. Perhaps, tyre strategy would be it, considering every team is given the same exact lineup of tyres and it’s their responsibility to make the most of it.
The Japanese GP was a standing start, which was a traditional start. Perhaps, in hindsight, it should have been a rolling start behind the safety car so drivers could understand where the rivers were and better plan their strategies, but moving on. After the race started, Ferrari’s Carlos Sainz was rounding the hairpin at turn 11 when–in his words–“Basically, by the time we started the race we were on inters but the track was nearly into extreme conditions. I had no visibility, so I tried to get out of Checo’s [Sergio Perez] slipstream, or Checo’s water curtain, and suddenly I found myself in a puddle and had aquaplaned and lost the car.” Sainz also confirms that while he could see cars flying past him, he knew they didn’t see him. “If there is no visibility, you are leaving it in God’s hands.”
It’s clear that Ferrari’s decision to start on the inters over the full wets wasn’t the correct strategy, and that incident could have been much, much worse. Unfortunately, if the FIA is going to implicate Gasly in the tractor debate, then it has to implicate itself for Sainz’ crash. “We are forced to go on the intermediates because the rain tyres are junk; sorry, not so good.” Said Sebastian Vettel after the race. “So we push ourselves from one emergency to the other.” Seb continued by saying that “the whole field was driving on the wrong tyres” because “we have an intermediate that is so much faster.” Essentially, if safety is the objective in Formula One, then drivers need a full wet tyre that is conducive to real racing. These drivers are the best in the world, and if the FIA don’t think they’re capable of handling these conditions, then they have to adopt a policy where they move the race schedule to avoid the weather. They see the weather reports far enough in advance, so it’s the next best option–if safety is truly the policy driver here.
In the past, wet conditions brought us some of the most iconic races in F1’s history. It would be a shame to see that era end because the FIA is averse to a little chaos. After the race, newly minted two-times world champion Max Verstappen said “I didn’t want to take a dig, but I think we need better rain tyres.” He continued, “You saw what we could do in the 90s and early 2000s with the amount of water on the track.” Verstappen then offered himself to do a few days of testing for Pirelli to see if they could come up with a better product. After what we saw in Japan and Singapore, I’m not sure that’s an offer the FIA and Pirelli can afford to pass up. Verstappen is right. The full wets are slow and the water dispersion data will only force teams to continue to risk collisions on inters in the future.
Again, if safety is what motivates decisions in Formula One, then there’s sufficient data and evidence to point FOM and the FIA in the correct directions moving forward.
