Nuna 5 na de crash
The World Solar Challenge 2009 came to an end. It was a weird one this time, lots of crashes, a top team (Umicore) that had to leave the race with a destroyed car on the first day of the race, both Dutch teams which overcame heavy crashes but finished in respectable positions, and a surprising but convincing winner... one for the books, as they say.
The crashes especially have fanned the flames of discussion, in the comments on this website (and other websites) but I also received a few e-mails about this subject. There are roughly two camps "It's all in the game" and "It's getting too dangerous". I gave the subject some thought in the past few days and I have formed an opinion. As I have never been a 'real' part of the WSC in any way I am, of course, a bit of an outsider but I read a lot about in the past few days and I think I can safely say that I've got some insight in the matter. And, it's an opinion, so if your opinion differs, you can tell me through the comments under this post or through e-mail.
De 21Revolution zou doorracen na de crash
The people from the It's-getting-too-dangerous-camp put arguments on the table like the light weight of the cars which would increase the chance of a crash and make them less safe for the driver. This group of people would like to specify all kinds of rules, like a minimum car weight, specify brand and type of tyres, specify maximum speeds or even to not hold the event on public roads but on a race circuit. I think that would indeed make the WSC more safe - and also mean it's eventual end.
A big part of the challenge (and it is a Challenge, not a race, despite the fact that I call it that) is that the teams venture a bit into unknown territory, sometimes go a bit beyond the borders of what's possible and usually get away with it.
I am absolutely in favour of safety rules. Since a few years there's the rule that all cars need to have a 'safety box' around the driver to protect him in a crash. This year a roll bar was specified. It could very well be that both rules saved lives this year. All three 'Benelux-crashes' took place at high speeds and if the cars would have been less sturdy the drivers may have sustained much more severe injuries - or worse.
De Inspire na de crash
Besides the safetey rules there are rules which keep the playing field level and which can at the same time be used to encourage innovation. Examples are the maximum active solar panel surface, which was reduced from eight to six square meters four years ago, and the battery weight which was reduced from 30 to 25kg this year. Those kind of measures keep the teams sharp and prevent the WSC from getting repetitive. Those kind of rules I can accept.
I am against very specific rules like for instance specifying a minimum car weight of a specific brand/type of tyres. That a sure way to stop innovation in its tracks and innovation is the backbone of the WSC. I'm not against general safety rules. For instance, to meet fears about the cars being blown off the road by a strong wind gust I can imagine a test with a big fan blowing at a predetermined speed against the cars, which should then not overturn. How they accomplish this should, in my opinion, by left to the teams. In the same way you could specify tyre profile depth but I don't think you should specify a brand/type of tyre. To give an example: during scrutineering only the braking distance is measured, the brand and type of brake with which you accomplish this is not specified.
So, in short, I'm not against a few new or changed 'result-rules', rules which specify a certain end-result (like braking distance) but I am strongly against very specific rules that curtail innovation. I have compared this with the incandescent light-ban we are having in the Netherlands. I am against that for several reasons, one of them being that it stifles innovation. What if some one develops a much more efficient incandescent bulb? We'll never know because the ban will stop all innovation, and incandesent bulbs will not be developed further. It would have been much better, in my opinion, if the ban would just have specified a minimum efficiency (in lumen/Watt) and leave it up to the manufacturers how they achieve that. Now only the manufactures of compact fluorescent and LED-lighting profit.
Deze coureur overleefde het helaas niet... (2005)
It's of course only a comparison, and comparisons are never a 100% true. Besides innovation there's also the responsibility of the teams. The WSC not event one enters only a few weeks before the staring thinking "yeah, this could be fun". The participating teams spend the better part of two years in designing and building their car, and training for the race. Even in this area I can see general rules, for instance drivers having to prove in some way that they can expertly handle the car in certain situations. Giving the teams detailed instruction on how to act in any situation? I don't think that's a good idea>
I hope the organisation of the 2011 WSC can find some middle ground between an safe race and a real Challenge when designing the new rules. Let's not forget that innovation sometimes requires taking well-considered risks.
Discussion in the comments is welcome.
) in Japan, possible to show the WSC's winner (Tokai university) to show who really should have won in Australia 
/
) about 90 teams are competing, and that makes it a lot bigger than the WSC. A difference is that the WSC is held on public roads and that the Dream Cup is held on the circuit of Suzuka (
