F1不应因诺里斯马德里失利而仓促修改规则
兰多·诺里斯在西班牙大奖赛因第14圈斯特罗尔退赛触发虚拟安全车的时机不巧而错失几乎到手的分站胜利，文章认为F1不应为此仓促修改规则。
为什么F1在兰多·诺里斯的马德里心碎之后应该避免仓促修改规则
"这根本不是你应该输掉一场比赛的方式，"这位卫冕世界冠军在错失一场几乎到手的胜利后说道——虽然他提出可能修改规则的问题是合理的，但几乎不存在一个理想的解决方案
兰多·诺里斯输掉了一场一级方程式的比赛胜利，既不是他自己的错，也不是他车队的错，而仅仅是因为一次虚拟安全车的时机不幸——这次虚拟安全车是在西班牙大奖赛第14圈由兰斯·斯特罗尔退赛引发的。这位迈凯伦车手在虚拟安全车启动前仅仅几秒错过了维修区入口——而且他可能是唯一一个因此真正受损的人。他的主要对手们本周末实际上根本无法接近诺里斯的节奏，却趁机完成了一次廉价进站——而最快的人只能屈居第三名。
这听起来不太对劲。因此，在大奖赛结束后，虚拟安全车基本上成了唯一真正的话题，修改规则的可能性再次被提起也是不可避免的。
“作为车手，今天我真的没有任何办法把工作做得更好，”诺里斯在比赛结束几分钟后于新闻发布会上说。“拿下杆位，领跑比赛，最后却因为我无法控制的原因输掉，我不认为比赛应该是这样取胜的。
“但我认为人们……我希望人们会同意，我认为人们会同意的。但这就是赛车，事情已经发生了，所以我实在没什么好抱怨的。我可以为此感到难过，但我真的不能抱怨。”
现在很容易就宣称规则需要修改——而且在这类情况中经常如此，你会听到很多“简单的解决方案”，在比赛结果的不公平被清晰地展示出来之后，这些方案不知怎的显得过于显而易见。
而这样的方案至少有两个，诺里斯本人在同一场新闻发布会上也提到了。
“我们过去已经谈过这个问题好几次了，谈的是如何至少能保证一圈的覆盖，或者让所有人都有机会完成进站，或者干脆封锁进站口，谁都不能进站，除非你爆胎之类的，你懂的。”
“所以，我认为有几种办法可以让这件事变得更简单、对每个人都更公平，但那是一个更大的讨论话题。”
这两个方案听起来都不错。但实际上，这两个方案都同样没用。
在虚拟安全车（VSC）期间关闭维修通道，或者允许所有人进站，在马德里本来会非常有效，这一点毫无疑问。
由于比赛中不允许加油，在虚拟安全车期间其实没有太大必要允许进站。就算虚拟或真实安全车出场时机不佳，赛车也不会突然耗尽燃油，所以只要关闭维修区入口，就能消除规则中一些“不公平”的因素。
如果维修区保持关闭，诺里斯就不会吃亏——因为没有人能够借机获得一次廉价的进站。
那么问题解决了吗？并没有。原因就在于当初为什么需要安全车——或其虚拟形式：大多数情况下，安全车出动是因为赛道上发生了事故。当赛道上可能还有一辆甚至几辆赛车靠着三个轮子慢行或前翼受损时，关闭维修区显然既不合逻辑也不安全。
西班牙大奖赛并不是第一场虚拟安全车影响了比赛结果的比赛。
只允许受损赛车进站也会有很大问题——因为你需要在体育规则中以某种方式定义“损坏”。像皮亚斯特里在马德里那次前翼受损，算不算符合在虚拟安全车（VSC）下进站的“足够”标准？如果再夸张一点想，车手们是不是还会故意去扎胎，以此获得进站的权利？
这只会制造太多灰色地带——其中最明显的一条，连诺里斯本人都提到了。
“我觉得，作为车手群体，我们都希望有这样一个规则，”他说，但同时也承认“这里面还有很多复杂的问题”。
“你知道，如果当时下着雨，赛道上有虚拟安全车（VSC），而你还用的是干地胎，这是不是意味着你可以进站，还是不能？这是个很复杂的问题。”
当然，出于安全考虑启用虚拟安全车，然后却不允许使用光头胎的车手换上雨胎，这显然与采取该措施的目的自相矛盾。如果这是一个合适的解决方案，早就被采用了。问题在于，事情并不像马德里站之后看起来那么简单。
整圈虚拟安全车也不是解决方案
那么，另一个选择是确保所有车手都有机会进站——这确实是一个简单的解决办法。因为真正对诺里斯不利的原因，并不是虚拟安全车在他已经驶过维修区入口时才启动——而是等他跑完一圈回到那里时，赛道已经恢复绿灯了。
为什么不确保虚拟安全车至少持续一整圈，让每个人都有机会便宜地进站换胎呢？
国际汽联的赛事总监和车手们当然可以在下一站巴库的会议上就此进行辩论——但即使他们真的讨论了，也很可能很快得出结论：这同样不是解决办法。虽然这样做可以再次确保西班牙大奖赛有一个“公平”的结果，但重要的是要记住，它只涵盖这一个特定场景——在其他情况下反而可能让事情变得更糟。
正因为一级方程式中仍然存在不同的策略，几乎总是会有车手因为安全车出现的时机而受益——也总会有车手因此吃亏。
有一个明确的场景，如果规则——以及比赛本身——稍有不同，就会对诺里斯不利。假设迈凯伦车手在第12圈进站，例如是为了防止梅赛德斯的基米·安东内利尝试抢先进站超越。这是完全正常的操作——而那位意大利车手接下来的可能策略就是延后自己的进站，以制造更大的轮胎差距。
如果诺里斯进站之后出现任何虚拟安全车，他将面临被安东内利夺走位置的风险。而在这种情况下，确保虚拟安全车至少持续一圈，实际上反而会保证并巩固“不公平”的结果——原因很简单：梅赛德斯将默认获得一次低成本进站，无论马修们清理事故的速度有多快。而在那种情况下，那些追求简单解决方案的人很可能会大声抱怨赛事控制必须尽快采取行动。
现实情况是，体育层面的结果——或者说何时以及多长时间出动安全车的问题——根本不会被比赛控制中心纳入考量。而且这样做是对的。赛车运动仍然是一项危险的运动，在做出这些决定时，安全应该是唯一的优先事项。
“但我认为，作为一个车手群体，如果我们大家都来讨论这件事，我想每个人都想要同样的东西，那就是对每个人的公平，”诺里斯说。“所以，是的，我今天当然要抱怨这件事。下周、下一场比赛我可能反而会从中受益，并因此获胜。
“所以，是的，我只能接受这个结果，但我只是希望这种事不要再发生在任何人身上，因为你不应该以这种方式输掉一场比赛。”
基米·安东内利，梅赛德斯；兰多·诺里斯，迈凯伦
但是，虽然车手们当然可以畅所欲言并提出关切，这并不意味着媒体上出现“诺里斯呼吁修改规则”这类头条新闻就必然需要立即采取行动。
对于这个问题，也许只有一个非常简单的解决办法——接受体育并不总是“公平”的这一事实。
这并不意味着不应该进行讨论，因为马德里暴露了一个早已为人所知的问题。但这个问题之所以长期存在，恰恰是因为没有简单的修复办法。
那些提出简单解决方案的人通常属于两种类型之一：真正不理解问题的人，或者是政客。
英文原文
Why F1 should avoid knee-jerk rule changes after Lando Norris' Madrid heartbreak
"It’s just not how you should lose a race," said the reigning world champion after missing out on an almost guaranteed victory - and while he's right to raise the question of potential rule changes, there is hardly an ideal solution
Lando Norris lost a Formula 1 race win through no fault of his own - or his team's - but simply because of the unfortunate timing of a virtual safety car, triggered on lap 14 of the Spanish Grand Prix after Lance Stroll's retirement. The McLaren driver missed the pitlane entry by mere seconds before the VSC was activated - and was probably the only man to really lose out because of it. His main rivals, who weren't actually even close to matching Norris' pace this weekend, got a cheap stop - and the fastest man had to settle for P3.
That doesn't sound quite right. So it was inevitable that the topic of potential rule changes came up again in the aftermath of a grand prix in which the VSC largely became the only real talking point.
“There’s literally nothing I could do as a driver today to do a better job," said Norris a few minutes after the finish in the press conference. "Pole, led the race, and to lose it for nothing in my control is, I don’t think, how a race should be won.
“But I think people... I hope people agree, I think people would agree. But it is racing and it’s happened, so I can’t really complain about it. I can be upset about it, but I can’t really complain about it.”
It's rather tempting now to declare that the rules need changing - and, as often in these sorts of cases, you'll hear a lot of "easy solutions", which somehow seem too obvious after a clear example of how unfair the outcome of the race was.
And there are at least two of that nature, which Norris himself mentioned during the same press conference.
"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 pit stops, or you just block the pit entry and no one can box apart from if you have a puncture or something, you know.
“So, 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.”
Both seem like good options. In reality, though, both are equally useless.
Closing the pitlane under VSC or allowing everyone to stop would have worked perfectly in Madrid, there's no doubt about that.
With no refuelling, there's less need to actually allow pitstops during the VSC. Cars won't suddenly run out of fuel in the event of unfortunate timing of a virtual or real safety car, so simply closing the pitlane entry would eliminate some of the "unfair" elements of the rules.
Had the pitlane stayed closed, Norris wouldn't have lost out - as no one would have been able to get a cheap stop.
Sorted, then? Not quite. Simply because of the reason why there is a need for a safety car - or its virtual analogue - in the first place: more often than not, it happens because of accidents on track. Closing the pitlane while there might be a car - or a few of them - crawling down the track on three wheels or with front wing damage is simply illogical and unsafe.
The Spanish GP wasn't the first race in which a VSC affected the result
Allowing only cars with damage to pit would also be problematic - as you'd need to somehow define damage within the sporting regulations. Would damage like that to Oscar Piastri's front wing in Madrid qualify as "enough" for a pitstop under VSC? If you exaggerate it even further, wouldn't drivers then seek to get a puncture, too - to earn the right to pit?
That would simply create too many grey areas - with the most obvious one mentioned by Norris himself, too.
"I think it’s something, as a group of drivers, I think we would all want," he said, but also admitted that "there’s a lot more to it".
"You know, depending on if it’s raining and there’s a VSC and you’re on slicks, does it mean you can box or not? It’s a complicated subject.”
Certainly, to deploy a VSC for the sake of safety and then disallow drivers on slicks from changing tyres to wets would simply contradict the purpose of the action. And if that was a suitable solution, it would've been implemented a long time ago. The issue is, it's just not as straightforward as it seems after Madrid.
A full-lap VSC isn't the solution either
Then, the other option is to make sure all drivers have a chance to pit - and that is indeed an easy fix. Because what really played against Norris was not the fact that the VSC was activated when he had already driven past the pitlane entry - but that by the time he made his way around the lap, it was already green again.
Why not make sure a VSC lasts for at least one lap, so everyone gets a chance for a cheap stop?
That's a debate FIA race directors and drivers can certainly have during the next meeting in Baku - but even if they do, they'd probably quickly come to the conclusion that it's not a solution either. While it would, again, guarantee a "fair" outcome of the Spanish Grand Prix, it's important to remember it covers only this particular scenario - and potentially makes things even worse in others.
Just because different strategies in F1 still exist, there are almost always going to be those benefiting from the lucky timing of a safety car - and those hard done by it.
There's one clear scenario which would have played against Norris had the rules - and the race itself - been slightly different. Say the McLaren driver had pitted on lap 12 of the race to, for example, prevent an undercut attempt from Kimi Antonelli and Mercedes. That would be something perfectly normal to do - and the possible strategy for the Italian would then be delaying his stop to create a bigger tyre delta.
Any VSC after Norris' stop would put him in danger of losing the position to Antonelli. And in this case, making sure the VSC lasts at least one lap would actually guarantee and secure the "unfair" outcome - simply because Mercedes would get a cheap pitstop by default, irrespective of how quickly the marshals cleared the incident. And in that case, those seeking easy solutions would probably be vocal about race control needing to act as quickly as possible.
The reality is that the sporting outcome - or the question of when and for how long to deploy a safety car - simply isn't taken into account by race control. And rightly so. Motor racing is still a dangerous sport, and safety is the only priority there should be when making these calls.
“But I think as a collection of drivers, if we all talk about it, I think everyone wants the same thing, and that’s just fairness for everyone," said Norris. "So yeah, of course I’m complaining about it today. I could benefit from it next week, next time out, and I could win because of it.
“So yeah, I have to take it on the chin, but I just hope it doesn’t happen to anyone again because it’s just not how you should lose a race.”
Kimi Antonelli, Mercedes, Lando Norris, McLaren
But while drivers are surely free to speak their minds and raise concerns, it doesn't mean headlines in the media about "Norris calls for rule changes" should necessarily require immediate action.
Perhaps there is just one really simple solution to this problem - to accept that sport isn't always "fair".
It doesn't mean there shouldn't be a discussion, as Madrid highlighted a long-known issue. But it's also long-known precisely because there's no simple way to fix it.
Those offering simple solutions are usually one of two types: people who don't really understand the problem, or politicians.
Motorsport.com ·
内容来自公开信源，聚合内容版权归原作者与来源所有。