F1虚拟安全车规则争议：西班牙站诺里斯事件引发讨论
由于兰多·诺里斯在西班牙大奖赛遭遇的虚拟安全车时机问题，F1虚拟安全车规则预计将被列入体育咨询委员会下次会议议程。
在兰多·诺里斯在西班牙大奖赛上的遭遇之后，一级方程式的虚拟安全车规则即将被提交给车队讨论。
消息人士表示，围绕马德里赛道事件引发的关于虚拟安全车规则的争论意味着，该话题几乎肯定会被列入下一届一级方程式体育咨询委员会（SAC）会议的议程。
在诺里斯本已稳操胜券、有望轻松赢下西班牙大奖赛之际，一次虚拟安全车时段的时机——因赛道上有碎片以及兰斯·斯特罗尔停驶的阿斯顿·马丁赛车——被他形容为“极其倒霉”，并让他付出了代价。
赛事控制中心在诺里斯刚刚驶过维修区入口仅五秒钟后就发布了虚拟安全车，这等于白送了他身后所有追赶的对手一次低成本的进站机会。
然后，更糟糕的是，虚拟安全车在诺里斯自己刚要回到维修区前几秒就结束了，这意味着他为了换胎承受了完整的25秒维修区损失时间。
诺里斯的排名下滑，但他随后的慢速进站并没有影响他的位置。尽管他最终获得第三名，但几乎毫无疑问，如果各车位置在进站过程中得以保持，他本可以赢下比赛。
赛后谈到他觉得这一情况有多么不公时，诺里斯支持让他的经历成为推动虚拟安全车规则可能改革的催化剂。
“这是一条不应该决定比赛结果的规则，”他对天空体育F1说道。“比赛应该由表现最好的人赢下，也许有人在一段（阶段）里冒险跑得更长，也许之后来了一辆安全车，情况就能有所帮助。”
迈凯伦车队领队斯特拉支持他的车手的观点，即西班牙站发生的那些事件——史无前例地暴露出领先车手成为唯一一辆无法在虚拟安全车（VSC）条件下进站的赛车——或许应当促使人们评估规则是否需要修改。
他说：“也许一级方程式界应该进行更广泛的反思，看看是维持现状，还是引入一些能够保持更公平的方式。”
然而，尽管这种情况表面上明显不公，但看起来不太可能达成修改规则的共识，因为旨在拉平差距的各种替代方案过去都已被排除。
对虚拟安全车（VSC）规则的反思看来将在一级方程式的体育咨询委员会（SAC）中进行，该机构由国际汽联代表以及11支车队各自的体育主管组成。
它被用作讨论体育规则问题的论坛，在需要时决定改进措施，并在有足够多车队支持的情况下，与国际汽联共同拟定规则修改的框架。
一旦一项提案通过体育咨询委员会，随后将提交给F1委员会审批，最后还需得到国际汽联世界汽车运动理事会的批准。
体育咨询委员会通常会审查可能存在争议的问题，以确认是否有变革的意愿，而关于虚拟安全车的任何辩论都将属于其职权范围。
然而，任何推动规则修改的行动，很可能都需要所有代表一致认为发生在诺里斯身上的事情是不公平的，而这正是意见可能存在分歧的地方。
虽然迈凯伦和诺里斯肯定会这么想，因为他们是唯一没有机会在虚拟安全车（VSC）期间进站的，但实际上这些事情都是按照既定程序发生的，而这些程序是根据随机出现的事件来执行的。
没有人能预料到斯特罗尔会在20号弯冲上逃生通道。没有人能预料到他会在那条逃生通道里陷住。也没有人能预料到阿隆索和塞恩斯在5号弯发生碰撞，导致赛道上出现碎片，而赛会认为需要清扫这些碎片。
这些事情偏偏在那个时候发生，而虚拟安全车（VSC）程序又紧跟着这些事件启动，对诺里斯来说最多只能算是运气不好——但这并不算不公平。
斯特拉表示，没有任何迹象表明赛会在判定虚拟安全车（VSC）时机时完全基于比赛安全运行的需要而做出任何不当行为。
他认为所发生的事情更多是一种不幸的因素。
“我认为有时候‘倒霉’这个词被用得太多了，但在这种情况下，这几乎是对‘倒霉’的数学定义，”他说。
不过，如果决定对规则进行调整，有几种修改虚拟安全车（VSC）规则的方式。
诺里斯表示，在车手简报会上提到虚拟安全车这个话题时，车手们经常讨论替代方案。
"我们过去谈论过这个问题，谈过好几次，关于如何至少让它在一圈内得到覆盖，或者让每个人都有机会进行进站，"他说。
"或者你干脆封闭进站通道，除了爆胎之类的情况，谁都不能进站。我认为有几件事可以做，让它对所有人来说更简单、更公平，但那是一个更大的讨论。"
虽然斯特拉支持各车队讨论替代性虚拟安全车方案的想法，但他并不确定怎样改进才最好。
他说自己对该怎么做感到"困惑"，随后给出了一个二选一的选择：要么延长每次虚拟安全车时段，让所有赛车都有均等的进站机会，要么照他的话说，"就交给老天爷，有时你运气好，有时你运气不好"。
正如埃德·斯特劳在我们《The 比赛》F1播客的比赛回顾节目中暗示的那样，如果你决定延长虚拟安全车（VSC）时段，让所有车手都有机会进站，最终就会出现这样的局面：赛事控制更关注的是比赛当时如何进行，而不是专注于它的首要职责——保持赛道处于安全状态。
把黄旗状态下的行驶置于绿旗比赛之上，同样是不合逻辑的。
另一种选择是效仿二级方程式（F2）的做法：允许在全安全车出动时进行强制进站，但在虚拟安全车（VSC）期间不允许，这样这种“免费进站”就不会计入你必须完成的轮胎配方更换。
这显然会降低车手在虚拟安全车期间进站的积极性，但它并不一定能消除进站彩票式的运气因素，尤其是当一场比赛需要多次进站，或者这意味着车手可以利用在虚拟安全车期间省下的进站时间，转而采用多次进站策略来获取优势。
这样的改变很可能只是把问题转移到另一个领域，而不是彻底根治。
也许最好的解决方案是，每当虚拟安全车（VSC）出动时，直接关闭维修站。
虚拟安全车（VSC）的设计初衷本来就是在处理赛道上的安全事务时，有效地冻结车与车之间的时间差距。如果一级方程式和国际汽联禁止在这些条件下进行任何进站，那么就不会有人能够在虚拟安全车（VSC）期间获得优势。
这个方案的缺点在于，当虚拟安全车（VSC）出动时，对那些已经进站的车该怎么办：它们是否可以保留这份运气和预判带来的好处，还是应该被留在维修站里，直到虚拟安全车（VSC）结束？
要为虚拟安全车规则找到一个完美的解决方案是一个非常困难的问题，甚至可能根本无解。
而且还有一个来自另一个高水平单座赛车赛事的警示故事，F1 应该引以为鉴——那个赛事曾试图解决这类问题，却失败了。
印地赛车曾决定改变管理黄旗时段的方式，以避免毁掉领跑者的比赛——但事后不得不撤销这些规则。
虽然情况并不完全相同，因为该赛事没有虚拟安全车这一选项，但印地赛车改变了在某些比赛场景下处理安全车时段（称为警报或全赛道警报）的方式，希望避免正是诺里斯在马德里遭遇的那种问题：领跑者因安全车出动的时机而处于不利地位，并失去关键的赛道位置。
英文原文
Formula 1's virtual safety car rules are set to be put up for team discussion in the wake of what happened to Lando Norris at the Spanish Grand Prix.
Sources have suggested that debate over the VSC rules triggered by events at the Madring mean that the topic will almost certainly be added to the agenda of the next meeting of F1's Sporting Advisory Committee (SAC).
Norris looked on course to romp to a straightforward win in Spain before what he referred to as the "insanely unlucky" timing of a VSC period - for debris on track as well as the stopped Aston Martin of Lance Stroll - cost him.
Race control called a VSC just five seconds after Norris had passed the pitlane entry, gifting all his pursing rivals an opportunity for a cheap pitstop.
Then, to make matters worse, the VSC ended just seconds before Norris himself had got back around to the pits, meaning that he endured the full 25-second pitlane time loss for a tyre change.
Norris dropped down the order, with his subsequent slow pitstop not impacting his position. Although he finished third, there was little doubt that he would have won had positions been maintained through the stops.
Speaking after the race about how unfair he felt the situation had been, Norris backed the idea of his experience being a catalyst for potential VSC regulation change.
"It's a rule that shouldn't define a race," he told Sky Sports F1. "A race should be won by the guy who can put in the best performance, who maybe takes a risk by going long in a stint, and maybe you get a safety car later on and things can help."
McLaren team principal Andrea Stella supported his driver's view that perhaps the events of Spain - which were unprecedented in exposing a race leader as being the only car unable to pit under VSC conditions - should serve as a prompt to evaluate whether the regulations need to change.
"Perhaps there's a wider reflection that the F1 community should apply as to whether to keep things like they are or [to] introduce ways of maintaining more fairness," he said.
However, despite the apparent injustice of such a situation, a consensus to change the rules appears unlikely because alternative solutions to even things out have all been ruled out in the past.
Reflection on the VSC looks set to take place in F1's SAC, which is the body composed of FIA representatives and sporting managers from each of F1's 11 teams.
It is used as a forum to discuss issues with sporting regulations, decide on improvements if they are needed, and work through with the FIA the framing of regulation changes if they are supported by enough teams.
Once a proposal has been passed by the SAC it then goes to the F1 Commission for approval, before the final stage of getting ratified by the FIA's World Motor Sport Council.
It is normal for the SAC to review potentially contentious issues to see if there is desire for change, and any debate over the VSC will fall under this remit.
However, any movement to go for a rule change would likely need agreement from every representative that what happened to Norris was unfair, which is an element where opinion may be divided.
While McLaren and Norris will certainly feel that way as the only ones who had no chance to pit under the VSC, in reality these things happen according to mapped out procedures that are implemented based on events that occur randomly.
No one could have predicted Stroll was going to head down the escape road at Turn 20. No one could have predicted he was going to get stuck in that escape road. And no one could have predicted the Turn 5 collision between Fernando Alonso and Carlos Sainz that put debris on the circuit that race control felt needed sweeping up.
That those things happened when they did, and that the VSC procedure followed those events, is at best unlucky for Norris - but it's not unfair.
Stella said there was no suggestion that race control had acted in any way it should not have in judging the timing of the VSC entirely on what was required for the safe operation of the race.
And he suggested what happened was more an element of misfortune.
"I think at times that being unlucky is used for too many applications, but in this case it's almost a mathematical definition of being unlucky," he said.
If, however, it is decided that a rules tweak should be pursued, there are several ways of altering the VSC rules.
Norris said that drivers had regularly discussed alternative solutions when the topic of VSC had come up in drivers' briefings.
"We have spoken about it in the past, several times, about how it can be at least covered for one lap or everyone has the opportunity to do the pitstops," he said.
"Or you just block the pit entry, and no one can box apart from if you have a puncture or something. I think there's a few things you could do to make it more simple and more fair for everyone, but that’s a bigger discussion."
While Stella supported the idea of teams discussing alternative VSC options, he was not certain about how best to improve things.
He said he was "puzzled" about what to do, before presenting a binary choice between extending every VSC period so all cars have equal opportunity to pit, or just leaving it, in his words, "in the hands of the gods and sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you are not".
As Edd Straw suggested in our race review episode of The Race F1 Podcast, if you decide to extend VSC periods so everyone gets a chance to pit, you will end up in a situation where race control is focused more on how the race is playing out at that moment, than simply doing its primary job of keeping the circuit in a safe condition.
It's also nonsensical to prioritise yellow flag running over green flag racing.
Another option would be to follow what Formula 2 does and allow mandatory pitstops under a full safety car but not the VSC, so this kind of 'free pitstop' doesn't count towards your mandated tyre compound switch.
That obviously disincentivises pitting under VSC, but it doesn't necessarily eliminate the pitstop lottery, especially if a race requires multiple stops or it means drivers could gain an advantage by using the pitstop time gained under the VSC to switch to a multi-stop strategy.
Such a change would likely shift the problem to a different area rather than cure it entirely.
Perhaps the best solution would be to simply close the pits whenever a VSC is deployed.
The VSC is already designed to effectively freeze the time gaps between cars while safety matters on track are dealt with. If F1 and the FIA banned any and all pitstops under these conditions, then no one is ever able to gain an advantage under VSC.
The downside with this one is what to do with cars that are already in the pits when the VSC is thrown; do they get to retain the benefit of their good fortune and anticipation, or should they be stuck in the pits until the VSC ends?
A perfect solution to VSC rules is a very difficult problem that may not have a solution.
And there's also a cautionary tale F1 should take note of from another high-level single-seater racing category that tried to tackle this kind of problem and failed.
IndyCar decided to change the way it managed yellow flag periods to avoid ruining leaders' races - and had to undo the rules afterwards.
While it's not quite the same, as that series doesn't have a VSC option, IndyCar made a change to how it dealt with safety car periods - known as cautions or full course cautions - in certain race scenarios, hoping to avoid the exact problem Norris suffered in Madrid: a leader being disadvantaged by the timing of a safety car period and losing crucial track position.
The Race ·
内容来自公开信源，聚合内容版权归原作者与来源所有。