Talk:2020 Bahrain Grand Prix

Behind closed doors

When the article is added the following should be added to the article (or something to similar effect):

"In response to the Coronavirus outbreak, organisers of the Bahrain Grand Prix announced that spectators would not be permitted to attend the race."
SSSB (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Something to a simiar effect has been added.
SSSB (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Atttendance

The race has officially been postponed. We don't know now if attendance will present or not.@SSSB:.--80.117.52.71 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edit you want me to do. It is still necessary to point out that for the initial race spectators would have been barred. But you can edit this article yourself.
SSSB (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

How much detail is needed about the Norris/marshal incident?

It should probably be mentioned, but the amount of detail which had been added seemed excessive for an incident where the outcome was that there was no accident and nobody was harmed. The reference to Tom Pryce's death seemed tangential as well. We didn't discuss François Cevert's death with relation to the Grosjean crash, and that's arguably far more relevant to this article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be mentioned as it was a safety incident that prompted a direct address from officials, but I agree that comparing incidents is excessive. Definitely cut it back.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem with "a marshal was nearly run over" should be fairly obvious and doesn't need a comparison to contextualise it for those who lack background knowledge. If anything comparing "a marshal could have been run over but wasn't" to the death of Tom Pryce is bordering on sensationalist. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, as it is now the article is pretty thorough in its explanation of the incident.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We cant make comparisons unless secondary, reliable sources do so first (WP:OR). I'm haven't looked at the news nor seen the race yet (feeling under the weather) but if sources neglect to mention it (F1.com doesn't mention it as far as I can tell) then it doesnt warrant anything more than a sentence on Wikipedia.
SSSB (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Current level of detail is sufficient, I didn't even realise there was a marshal incident. And I agree about WP:OR- sources don't seem to be making any comparisons, so neither should we. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BBC article claiming an F1 car hasn't caught fire in a crash since Imola 1989

I'm not saying this is false. But the claim that Grosjean's crash was the first time a Formula One car has caught fire in a crash in 31 years is an extraordinary one. It would likely be highly notable if true, but I'm inclined in this case to believe that the BBC article may have made some sort of error until further citations can back that claim up. It would be less extraordinary if this was the first time since then that an F1 car has caught fire in a crash during a race, as any firey crashes may have happened to have taken place during practice/qualifying/testing sessions, but if that were true it would be far less notable and more just a weird coincidence. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

2013 Korea jumps to mind first. More likely that the BBC meant that '89 was the last time a crash caused a fire (of that size). Benson needs a lesson in writing/history because the more I think about it the more cases of fires I can think of (including Germany '94 with Verstappen). Didnt Hamilton's retirement in Malaysia '16 involve a small engine fire.
SSSB (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The article in question has just been edited to say a crash hasn't started a fire since '91.
SSSB (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Hulkenberg's car catch fire after a crash a couple of years ago? They may mean that "a crash hasn't started a fire of that size" since 1989, which is probably true. Since trying to establish what the BBC article actually means would constitute original research it may be worth leaving that part out unless a better source comes up. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Explaining g-force in Grosjean crash in layman's terms?

Neither "53g" or "520 m/s/s" are particularly intuitive units of measurement for acceleration for an ordinary person without some knowledge of physics. Perhaps explaining how quickly the car came to a standstill or some sort of equivalent may be helpful. For example saying that it's the equivalent of going from 100 km/h to a standstill in 0.053 seconds. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The g unit is relatively intuitive and is widely used. I'd say it's fairly common knowledge that experiencing X g means you experienced X times the acceleration applied by gravity, and even if it wasn't (which is why I enabled linked units) using a unit of acceleration is the most correct way of displaying this information. Your suggestion is still an acceptable equivalent.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, do we have a source saying whether the 53g figure is the peak level of acceleration during the impact or if the average? If it's the peak then the "an estimated force of 53 g (520 m/s²) (equivalent to 100-0 km/h in 0.053 seconds)" example would be useful as that's how most people would be used to seeing acceleration presented in an automotive context; whereas if it's the average then it would be possible to just say "the car came to a stop from 220 km/h (137 mph) in 0.118 seconds with an estimated force of 53 g (520 m/s²)", which would be fairly ideal. We should assume that it's the peak force unless there is a source indicating it's the average, however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

g is linked in the article for people to check what it means, and is common standard in racing. If there's sources that give it in different terms i.e. they say Grosjean's car decelerated from speed X to 0 in time Y, then we can add that. But I've only seen sources give it in g. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

equivalent to 100-0 km/h in 0.053 seconds - that's not intuitive at all. You might as well say equivalent to 10,000-0 km/h in 5.3 seconds. The numbers are so extreme us mere humans simply cant comprehend them. The "layman" uses g when is comes to deceleration, or X times faster than the average road car. I also dont see the benefit of having m/s² as a unit of deceleration. Its largely meaningless, and if we have it we really need ft/s².
SSSB (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's included because g is simply expressing m/s/s in terms of acceleration due to gravity rather than as an absolute. I have added ft/s/s as well.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Romain Grosjean

Although yes, there is a possibility of Grosjean returning, it doesn't seem to be happening any time soon, if ever. Especially because he had already competed through 10 seasons and was struggling in his years with Haas. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By all means put "As of 2021, this was Grosjean's last Grand Prix". But, to say that "[Grosjean] would never start another Grand Prix again." is WP:CRYSTAL, and therefore not appropriate, until such a time that he retires from competitive racing, or he explictly says, "I will not go back to F1."
SSSB (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed it. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)