The 2 hour time limit on F1 races...

I'll probably come across as a n00b for asking this, but it's been bugging the hell out of me lately:

(1) When did this become official?
(2) When was the first time-limited race?

There seems to be no official info available on this, which is both weird and annoying, considering what a fundamental rule it is.

My guess would be sometime in 1972-1973, since the 1972 Monaco GP ran for well over 2 hours, but the 1973 Canadian GP - the next well known rain-affected race - finished 1 minute short of the 2 hour mark. Although that might just be coincidence...

Can anyone confirm when this rule actually came into force? Would be greatly appreciated!!

---

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2015 10:56PM by EC83.

I don't know, but I remember they were talking about that rule on TV for the Canadian Grand Prix 1981, and as far as I remember that was the first time I've heard of it.

So maybe :
1- 1981 season
2- probably later than Montreal '81 because if I'm correct they finished the race just before the two hours limit.

---

Thank you!

After checking out that race, it seems the 2 hour rule was applied because only 63 laps were completed instead of the usual 69 or 70, and the race time was 2:01:25.2(Less than the time to do one complete lap after the two hours). Strangely, the Wiki page for this race doesn't mention it for some reason.
After checking out all the earlier post-1972 wet races, there was no conclusive evidence that any of them were time-limited.

(As an aside, doing more research of my own last night, I did come across a mention of a two-hour rule that came into force in 1958, but it turned out that that was a rule determining the minimum time for duration of races - reduced from the previous 3 hours - and not the maximum duration.)

So, it seems that Montreal 1981 was indeed the first time this rule was enforced.

You're a star!

---

In the last laps Lauda's oil pressure was fading and Fittipaldi was closing. With three laps left the gap was 2.75 seconds, however,the two hour time limit was reached and the race was stopped, with Lauda winning.

[en.wikipedia.org]

I have no idea if this was the first time.

Yeah, the 1973 Canadian GP went the usual 80 lap distance. Whether the 2-hour rule had been introduced at that point I've no idea, but it certainly wasn't enforced at that race.

Thanks, that narrows it down to a 3-year window then.
Learning as I go here, ha.

---

It's a bollocksy rule anyway.

If they don't want to race longer than two hours they should drive faster :P

I heard that the WEC will imposing a 24hr maximum race time at Le Mans.... Oh wait...

You've lost me a bit there Jim.

Anyways, I've found another one:

[www.grandprix.com]

"The race was stopped at two hours (six laps short of the intended race distance) and Ferrari ended the day with a 1-2, with Lauda scoring his first GP victory."

Between mid-1972(possibly late 1973) and early 1974 then.


Laton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a bollocksy rule anyway.

Exactly what I've begun to think. Is there really any need to limit races to 2 hours anymore? Drivers are so much fitter these days and cars are so much more reliable and relatively safe, so I think the reasons for imposing it in the first place no longer apply. Races should be more of a challenge whenever possible.
Definitely I think the 4-hour rule for completion of stopped races is silly. If that had applied at the Canadian GP which triggered it, one of the best endings to a race in recent times would've been ruined.

---

Yeah I think it's utter bulls**t as a rule. There should be a MINIMUM time on racing not a maximum time. Like at Singapore we usually lose the last lap or are close to, why can't they just let it run the damn distance. Sprint racing is for national championships.

I'd have a 2h15 minimum race time personally, another 45+mins on average on top of what we have these days. In my mind more racing is better :P (My opinion :D)

The more I think about it, I think they should abolish it, too. Cars today are supposedly not so physically difficult to drive, so clearly fitness shouldn't be a problem! Besides, there's something special about watching a sporting event and having it go way past it's expected finishing time, for whatever reason. You feel like you're watching a part of history. Maybe it's an extreme example, but it's a bit like that Wimbledon match a few years ago, that lasted for 3 days instead of 3 hours - everybody was talking about it! Which brings me on to...


EC83 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Definitely I think the 4-hour rule for completion
> of stopped races is silly. If that had applied at
> the Canadian GP which triggered it, one of the
> best endings to a race in recent times would've
> been ruined.


...this. You stole the words from my mouth. How long did that GP last, 4 hours? 5 hours? Whatever it was, I was glued to my TV for pretty much the entire time, heh. More so than if it had been just another standard weekend. And guess what... I remember it fondly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]

It's more to do with safety; the sunlight was clearly on its way out at the race in Canada, whilst for the flyaways where TV schedules are more geared towards European countries there's a real risk of darkness after that four hour point.

I find it pretty self-centred to suggest they change it just because it *might* ruin the end to the race and "spoil our spectacle"; sure, we'd have been deprived of Canada 2011 (although people overrate that race a lot) but we'd never have known at the time. Furthermore, we have no gauge of how hard it is to drive the cars and to suggest "they should race for hours because the cars are easy to drive" is...well, imagine someone with no prior experience telling you how to do YOUR job.

It's fine as it is. Races very rarely get near the limit anyway, and it would be pointless to kick up a fuss to try and change it for something that happens once in a blue moon.

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski

Yes but instead of having a time limit. In those cases where light is fading or it's gonna' get dark. Just end the race when it becomes too bad. No need to go into the weekend with a theoretical time limit. If a race has been delayed, and it's going dark, you don't need a time limit as a reason to end it, the race director will just end it. Thus allowing Canada 2011 5 hour delays to be possible as long as the light etc allows. Whereas the current rule wouldn't even let it be resumed even if it was still perfect sunshine out.

Incident 2k9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it pretty self-centred to suggest they
> change it just because it *might* ruin the end to
> the race and "spoil our spectacle"; sure, we'd
> have been deprived of Canada 2011 (although people
> overrate that race a lot) but we'd never have
> known at the time. Furthermore, we have no gauge
> of how hard it is to drive the cars and to suggest
> "they should race for hours because the cars are
> easy to drive" is...well, imagine someone with no
> prior experience telling you how to do YOUR job.

Have to disagree here.

Since when was it "self-centred" of fans of a sport to want to just see that sport play out, unaffected by silly technicalities, and enjoy it? To me, that's part of what being a fan is about.
Canada 2011 lasted for 4 hours and 4 minutes. If the 4 hour rule had applied at that race, the final two laps wouldn't have been run, and a standout race(and think what you want about it, but a lot of us thought it was epic) wouldn't have had its defining moment. Sure, a lot of what we see will be the same under the current rules, but defining moments which help characterise the sport won't happen as much.
Also, the cars ARE easier to drive now than they were even 20 years ago, and much easier to drive than they were in the eras before that. Maximum safety precautions are taken, the drivers are supremely fit and have plenty of stamina. If they've already been driving non-stop for 2 hours, or driving on and off for 4 hours, is a few extra minutes of driving going to hurt them or put them in additional danger? No. And as you even said yourself, the situation doesn't arise often anyway.
That has nothing to do with "telling them how to do their job", and anyway it's a bit rude to suggest that fans who've watched F1 for years(many years in some cases) have no idea what it must feel like to drive the cars or what challenges are involved, or shouldn't suggest ways in which the sport could be improved.

Lengthened and delayed races have always been a part of F1, and the hardcore fans have always loved them. Take them away or impose limits on them, and you kill off a bit of the sport itself - and don't tell me that's an exaggeration.


flat tyre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The more I think about it, I think they should
> abolish it, too. Cars today are supposedly not so
> physically difficult to drive, so clearly fitness
> shouldn't be a problem! Besides, there's
> something special about watching a sporting event
> and having it go way past it's expected finishing
> time, for whatever reason. You feel like you're
> watching a part of history. Maybe it's an extreme
> example, but it's a bit like that Wimbledon match
> a few years ago, that lasted for 3 days instead of
> 3 hours - everybody was talking about it! Which
> brings me on to...
>
>
> EC83 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Definitely I think the 4-hour rule for
> completion
> > of stopped races is silly. If that had applied
> at
> > the Canadian GP which triggered it, one of the
> > best endings to a race in recent times would've
> > been ruined.
>
>
> ...this. You stole the words from my mouth. How
> long did that GP last, 4 hours? 5 hours? Whatever
> it was, I was glued to my TV for pretty much the
> entire time, heh. More so than if it had been just
> another standard weekend. And guess what... I
> remember it fondly.

I remember I watched the first part(Up to and including the stoppage) at home, then went down the pub(Where I was due to work as a photographer that night) in time to watch the restart on my laptop on the pub WiFi. It was busy - there was a band playing a gig, which was why I was there taking photos - and a whole bunch of punters crowded round my laptop to watch the race, and when Jenson overtook Seb on the last lap an insane cheer went up. That was a fun experience.

Korea 2010 was another one that left a special memory.

---

Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2015 06:46AM by EC83.

Incident 2k9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's more to do with safety; the sunlight was
> clearly on its way out at the race in Canada,
> whilst for the flyaways where TV schedules are
> more geared towards European countries there's a
> real risk of darkness after that four hour point.
>
> I find it pretty self-centred to suggest they
> change it just because it *might* ruin the end to
> the race and "spoil our spectacle"; sure, we'd
> have been deprived of Canada 2011 (although people
> overrate that race a lot) but we'd never have
> known at the time. Furthermore, we have no gauge
> of how hard it is to drive the cars and to suggest
> "they should race for hours because the cars are
> easy to drive" is...well, imagine someone with no
> prior experience telling you how to do YOUR job.
>
> It's fine as it is. Races very rarely get near the
> limit anyway, and it would be pointless to kick up
> a fuss to try and change it for something that
> happens once in a blue moon.


Spot on

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

Incident 2k9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's more to do with safety; the sunlight was
> clearly on its way out at the race in Canada,
> whilst for the flyaways where TV schedules are
> more geared towards European countries there's a
> real risk of darkness after that four hour point.

This is a good point, actually, but I think there could be workarounds. In other sports, they use light meters to decide if a match should stop. I don't see why this couldn't also be the case in F1 - that way, if there is potential for a delayed race to continue, then it can, rather than just saying "nah, the clock says we're finished, so that's it for this weekend"


> I find it pretty self-centred to suggest they
> change it just because it *might* ruin the end to
> the race and "spoil our spectacle"; sure, we'd
> have been deprived of Canada 2011 (although people
> overrate that race a lot) but we'd never have
> known at the time. Furthermore, we have no gauge
> of how hard it is to drive the cars and to suggest
> "they should race for hours because the cars are
> easy to drive" is...well, imagine someone with no
> prior experience telling you how to do YOUR job.
>
> It's fine as it is. Races very rarely get near the
> limit anyway, and it would be pointless to kick up
> a fuss to try and change it for something that
> happens once in a blue moon.

I could understand this reaction if some of the suggestions made here were extreme, but none of them are really. As you said, it rarely gets anywhere near the 2-hour mark, so any increase in the length of the race would be minimal.

As far as I know, the only time a race ever gets near the 2-hour mark are when there's some kind of stoppage, or the laptimes are too slow (either due to weather or the nature of the circuit - ie Singapore). Wet weather might be more mentally demanding, but the forces involved are a lot smaller so it's less of a physical challenge. Stoppages and safety cars would actually make it easier for a driver - less laps are done at full racing speed, with the stoppage providing a chance to rest.

In both of these cases, although the driver might spend more time in the car, less of it is spent working hard. Anybody would get tired after sprinting for too long, but if they get to walk occasionally or even jog the whole way, then they have the capability to go a lot further.

EDIT: In the case of Singapore, maybe it's just a matter of making it an exception to the 305km per GP rule, like Monaco.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2015 08:04PM by flat tyre.