6 replies to this topic

[philhitchings]

An old chesnut I know but still....................

Firstly I believe that, in an inherently dangerous sport as F1, it is difficult to state categorically that a sport is too safe. There is always danger involved, that is in itself part of the attraction for many. However, I would suggest that from a trackside spectator point of view (rather than a TV viewer) the safety issue takes on a different perspective.

Year upon year barriers seemingly move further and further away from the edge of the track. The Grandstands are often behind acres of gravel even at "relatively" slow corners, thus distancing/isolating the race fan from what it is they have come to see. F1 is now a very "exclusive" club, as far as close access to the cars is concerned. To get near the cars (corporate stand facsimiles aside) for most is almost unheard of, with the exception of the Paddock Club of course. Unfortunately this itself causes a safety perception problem.

I think that it perhaps desensitises trackside spectators from truly appreciating the real danger involved in this high speed sport. Cars are not travelling at top speeds the for the whole period of a lap, everyone appreciates that; however, even when there are slow corners, the time taken for an F1 car to negotiate these sections is incredibly short. The problem is that when you are sitting some 250m+ from the circuit it appears that the drivers are going relatively slowly. After all, an object that is passing a viewer nearby will always appear to be moving relatively quickly when compared to one that is at some distance away. Hence the calls of too safe from the majority of casual observers, and the rebuttals of not safe enough from those who are obviously spending time at the edge of the circuit.

I would say that F1 is very safe now. If memory serves well I seem to remember that the most recent race related accident that involved injury was Michael Schumacher's' at Silverstone in 1999, prior to that it was Olivier Panis accident at the Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve 1997 both drivers "escaping" with lower limb fractures. There have been accidents in testing but even these have not resulted in major injury as far as I can recall.

I recognise that drivers such as Luciano Burti (Spa Francorchamps 2001) was saved by car safety in the main rather than circuit safety (his car was trapped underneath the protection that was intended to stop him), The same could be said of Giancarlo Fisichella's accident at Magny Cours in mid July (the car stopped at the edge of the circuit having hit a tyre wall but the head and neck restraints protected the driver).

This is as it should be the cars' (survival cell) should be able to withstand the rigours of an accident. What needs to be addressed is at which points are the FIA technical team overcompensating track safety when existing developments on the cars are able to protect the driver.

As far as spectators are concerned I would not want to be injured nor would I like to see any one else hurt, however to remove the immediacy of the sport by putting grandstands so far back from the edge of the circuit so as to diminish the experience is a poor response to the spectator safety issue

[Peter Perfect]

F1 should be about the best drivers in the world driving the most sophisticated machinary around a variety of tracks.
I'm all in favour of improving safety for the drivers, however that doesn't have to mean that all tracks have to be the same (look at the new Hockenheim, it's the A1-Ring transplanted to Germany). With talk about Spa being dropped were're moving towards 17 identical tracks. The only new track with anything unique about it is Malaysia, and that's only because of its width. Current tracks seem to be constrained by the need to ensure that you can watch 80% of the race from your grandstand seat, which sounds good for the crowd but watching F1 cars lap 17 different Kart tracks might gets tiresome.

The current tracks are very safe, but perhaps not as exciting to watch as they should be.

[BRG]

There is no such thing as a circuit that it TOO safe. We are talking about people's lives here. As long as the FIA still approve things like the new Interlagos pit-lane entrance, or that concrete wall at the revised Hockenheimring, there is clearly still plenty of basic work to do.

But safety does not necessarily mean making circuits less challenging or more sanitised. It is just that it is the easy way out, and as we know, the FIA are good at taking that route. So instead of moving the wall back at Tamburello (which would involve some serious engineering work), we got the easy option, a duff chicane. Big run-offs with nothing to hit are the safest solution and you don't need to emasculate a great corner to do it - but it costs money and Bernie will always put his bank balance ahead of good circuit design.

[philhitchings]

Originally posted by BRG
There is no such thing as a circuit that it TOO safe. We are talking about people's lives here. As long as the FIA still approve things like the new Interlagos pit-lane entrance, or that concrete wall at the revised Hockenheimring, there is clearly still plenty of basic work to do.

But safety does not necessarily mean making circuits less challenging or more sanitised. It is just that it is the easy way out, and as we know, the FIA are good at taking that route. So instead of moving the wall back at Tamburello (which would involve some serious engineering work), we got the easy option, a duff chicane. Big run-offs with nothing to hit are the safest solution and you don't need to emasculate a great corner to do it - but it costs money and Bernie will always put his bank balance ahead of good circuit design.

Yes I agree with you in Part, however it is the individual circuits themselves that fund the circuit revisions not Bernie. Look at Silverstone and the trouble it has had over the last few years, obtaining planning permission, getting backing etc.

[CONOSUR]

This is really a tough one. :

Purely through the nature of the sport, danger is inherent. Tracks can be sanitized (for lack of a better word), but there will still be the possibility that any driver could die on any given day at any given track. A good example would be the Heidfeld/Sato accident in Austria, where the track had nothing to do with it, yet the shunt was so vicious that Sato could've died that day. The track itself only plays a part of the equation.

The quest for a safe run-off area seems to have gone down the wrong path, ie. flat, open spaces with lots of room and either gravel or high-friction asphalt as a speed arrestor. How many have ever seen a down-hill run-off area for runaway trucks? The run-off area always runs uphill and has a deep bed of sand (I think) or soft earth. This will stop a massive amount of force in the shortest possiblw distance without killng anyone (as a brick/concrete wall does - even tire barriers can do massive physical damage to a body).

After Silverstone in '99, it was Eddie Irvine who championed the benefits of earthen banking to arrest runaway rockets. The problem was that track owners would have to have elevated their seating stands in certain corners and the expense was too excessive compared to throwing in some gravel and taking out a few seats (meaning that the closest seats are now much farther away ).

With gradually sloping earthen banking, seats could still be close to the action. What surprises me is that people like Tilke haven't designed this into new track layouts, instead choosing to use even greater areas for run-off. A new track could have longer straits with higher speed curves, etc. and still be safer than the homogenized crap they're turning the great old circuits into. The Burti shunt at Blanchemont would've amounted to...maybe...not much at all really. He would've been slowed by massive, yet gradual, decceleration in a very short distance with no wreckage or damage. Great corners, like Tamburello, wouldn't have to be beheaded with chicanery. Granted, Tamburello is a unique situation because the wall was so close to both the track and the stream (?) that runs behind it, but the curve could've been brought in a little bit, in order to allow for earthen banking, and still kept its high-speed sweeper nature.

Anyways, I think tracks are, generally, going in the wrong direction. The high-friction asphalt is good if you already have run-off room (10x better than gravel, because the cars can return to the race), but if you don't, then earthen banking is the way to go.

Of course, that's just my opinion...;)

[Julius]

I think JPM said it best when he said that the relatively high degree of safety associated with current F1 tracks encourage most drivers to drive at and over the edge. In fact, all F1 drivers go "over the edge" at least once or twice in practice because it helps them better know that cars limits and the risk of doing so are relatively very mild. In fact, unlike any other major series, all F1 drivers are on the edge at all times.

Consequently, it makes you wonder how special "riding the edge" really is when the penalties for going too far are relatively benign. Someone one this board said earlier this week that a great driver once said that the difference between a good drive and a great driver is that a good one defines the edge with a paint bruch while the great driver defines it with a razor blade. I agree; however, this statement was made in reference to forms of auto racing that were far more treacherous than the current F1. And so I wonder how special it is to define the edge with a dull, sanatized razor: a razor that doesn't cut both ways.

[Schuting Star]

Motor racing is always dangerous and any circuit will have its associated dangers. Senna's death highlighted many areas that needed to be improved but also instigated changes that were more due to the emotional reaction to his death rather than a balanced judgement over whether the changes were necessary. Some of the chicanes that have been added at places like Monza may have slowed down the cars but it could be argued that they cause problems that are equally dangerous as the higher speeds.

I accept that circuits must be made a safe as possible; none of us want to see drivers killed (or I hope not). I agree though that it is the cars safety cell and innovation such as HANS that is going to make the bigger difference than circuit changes. That Michael's accident at Silverstone 'only' resulted in a broken leg was more due to the strength of the Ferrari than the circuit protection, he went straight through the tyres and hit the wall. There are certainly possibilities such as looking at run off areas as opposed to gravel etc, but I do believe that there is only a certain amount you can do to the circuits before they become uninspiring, and unfortunately there are a few on the calendar that have reached this stage. I don't know whether circuits are too safe, I think its more to do with safety concerns having made them less interesting.