@@danielo7985 A lot of people want spa to fill the spare slot later this season. That would be before the renovations. Also, other cars will race there in the mean time, and just because formula 1 may not be coming back this year, doesn't mean the drivers in other cars do not deserve a safe track.
Its interesting how people calling for change and people resistant to change actually want the same thing, for a change in the barriers. I was arguing with a guy earlier and as soon as I clarified that I wanted the barriers changed not the track he agreed with me immediately.
But if you extend the barriers is it just gonna make the cars try go faster? They can risk going faster because they know if they screw it up there is abit more run off. But going faster will hit the wall faster? I don’t know just hard to figure out I guess
@@Baba-eo3uc most modern racing cars, from prototypes to single seaters to GT3s drive that corner flat or nearly flat anyways. The difference of speed they can possibly gain is therefore minimum imo
@@Baba-eo3uc but your argument will get interesting when it rains, tho no one would drive it significantly faster than the grip limit anyways, since that will just throw away their lap and waste at least 2 min of their limited time in the session
i mean come on how expensive can it be for the circuit on the biggest racing championship in the planet to dig up a hill and drop some landfill on the other side?
@@SilkCutJaguarXJR- - they would have a very larger amount of the required materials just from flattening the left hill. Nothing to stop that being used in the right side…
@@SilkCutJaguarXJR- how expensive it can be? How about 18 million Euros? That is how expensive it can be. Spa makes about 30 million Euros a year, so that is akin to more than HALF of its yearly income to "fix" that. It is pretty expensive, but they will do it, because it was required, because fans asked, because the FIA pressured. They will do it, despite having more than half of their income being spent on it.
@@sombraarthur honestly they should give full openness about the costs, plans and what they can reasonably spend on it and if they cant fully pay for it themselfs go for a crowdfund. I'm willing to chip in and I believe lots and lots of others would be willing to pay so the corner itself can be kept as is while making the surrounding safer. Put all the funders names on the barrier and that 18m shouldnt be that hard.
They need massive run off so if you do lose it you are well clear of the track and maybe even have gravel or something to slow you down before a wall collision
@@andre_star7776 Absolutely not. SAFER barriers are TERRIBLE for frontal impacts. They are only good for very shallow angle impacts. TecPro would absorb a lot more. I think they should have the tyre barrier and then a layer of tecpro in front
@@ChicaneryF1 SAFER was designed with all impacts in mind. This was made for IMS and the Indy 500 when cars at 370 KPH can get loose in a corner and a countersteer would snap it straight into one (See Sebastien Bourdais' qualifying crash).
@@andre_star7776 SAFER barriers would be the way to go when the runoff is straight-lined. For now, TecPro would be better as it's designed for frontal impacts and arresting the car in a head-on
The corner is a fantastic corner and is not a problem. The runoff area's are the issue. It would take a bit of work to dig up some dirt and trees to create more runoff space, but not impossible.
@@Kyle-Russell It would. While it’s not all that apparent on TV footage of the circuit there’s a significantly higher bit of ground to the left of that complex of corners (with a small cliff/bank there), a a steep drop to the right. There’s watercourses in the mix too, so something would need to be done with those in addition to changes to the topography. Not as easy to solve as it would first seem.
I saw some people saying in social media that Senna would still have raced and today's drivers are a bunch of babies. I've never read such bullshit. Big part of Senna's lifework was to increase safety standards in F1 and motor racing in general. Not only that, the Australian GP in 1991 had similar situation and he was furious that the race was still happening (there are videos about it). People that say "Senna would have raced" need to have their concept of Senna and racing in general reviewed. From a Brazilian Senna fan.
exactly this. while senna was a furious racer, he always was others first when it came to safety. people who say that this sport is now "soft" or whatever incredibly out of touch
Change Eau Rouge/Raidlio, no But improving the safety feature, defined yes. The safety feature definitely needs to be changed to avoid another bounce back to the track after a collision. Maybe increase the runoff area or use a different type of barrier.
iirc there was a plan to change the barrier so the cars wouldn't bounce back to the track but the circuit owners didn't want to expend the money or they didn't even have it in the first place
They need to make the run off area on the right side of Radillion wider as well as change the shape of the run off itself. Turn the end area (that curves back toward the track) and make it into a cul-de-sac or dead end going further right. That way if it’s utilized people can’t take advantage and continue back on the track without reversing, it’ll also allow for less impactful crashes with the increased margin for error
@@Sticktothemodels A cul-de-sac type deal wouldn't work halfway through what's basically a straight. what if someone spins in such a way they hit the divider between the runoff and the track? the runoff you think off only works in street circuits with sharp corners they don't take at full speed.
I think Seb’s reaction to Lando’s crash says it all. They are the ones out there risking their lives. Their opinions matter way more than the fans or anyone else.
Disagree. Their opinions matter zero as drivers because this is a form of entertainment and the audience is the ones that determines if it’s worthwhile. The audience is a film decides if the film is with paying to watch, not the actors. And Landos crash appears to be a result of the driver action not aquaplaining on a sloped roadway. If folks want a super safe racing sport then go create a new series and do that and stop ruining F1 . If the entire calendar starts to look like the Middle East tracks and Paul Richard in France the sport is toast.
having watched one of my racing idols, one at this very circuit at the aforementioned corner in 1985 (Stefan Bellof) die tragically and another at San Marino in 1994. I have always hoped and wished such grim fates would never befall another driver. The men and women in the cars are athletes, not gladiators dueling to the death.
What fans should want is the drivers who push the edge of adhesion, speed, etc. be rewarded when they can pull it off and be penalized when they can't pull it off but not at risk of their lives. That's why I agree that it's the runoff that needs to be improved. It looks like the already planned changes should help a lot.
@@tompw3141 The only thing I would add is that driver's mistake(s) should cost them time on the track/in the race, then cost them the race by having to withdraw/retire the car, Not cost them injuries or even their lives.
Thank you for including the last part on "Danger Lovers". It's just tarmac, if we need to lose a piece of track or keep a life, we 100% should keep the life
@@TheEvapiiShow Yeah, in this case improving the runoff is the ideal option AND a possible one at that. In situations where changing the corner is literally the ONLY option, I'm game for changing the corner at that point
Alonso's Crash in Australia is probably one of the most memorable moments of F1 for me and one of my favorites, in hindsight obviously. Seeing him get into such a crash but get out of his car unscathed to me was such a powerful show of what the sport has achieved in terms of safety and how that hasnt changed the fact that drivers are still giving it their everything.
Exactly the same thing happened 20 years earlier to Martin Brundle at the same corner. It must have been so surreal to experience such as a thing as a driver, then watch history repeat itself as the commentator (on British TV) 20 years on!
I completely agree, it’s amazing how far safety has come along in this sport, even going back to 2000’s with Kubicas Accident…even then we came a long way since the 90s…I don’t think we would have Kubica,Alonso,Grosjean and many more if we didn’t move with safety. Even in NASCAR, the Newman bar saved Newman’s life in the 2020 500. The HANS and closed faced helmets saved countless lives in the past 20 years. Safety should always be the 1st thing to consider before the race…Is it REALLY safe to drive what is essentially a 1000BHP carbon kite with airplane sized wings at 200+ MPH…No, there is definitely safer sports… like golf…but i think that we don’t want to see anyone die in a race…We have lost too many talents just for some hardass to say “toughen up snowflake”…
Excellent article. I have been following the sport for 56 years, and my first jolt was learning, age 8, that my hero Jim Clark had died in an accident. Later as a teenager, I saw many drivers die live on TV, including the most horrific of all, seeing Roger Williamson burning to death inside his upside-down car, as David Purley tried desperately to save him, while inept marshalls did nothing. Then, the wreck was covered by a tarp, with a burnt cadaver inside, as the race continued as if nothing had happened, so, every time the leading car went by the scene (back then cameras stuck to leading cars a lot), the mound of twisted automobile covered by a tarp with a body inside would come into view, and as a thirteen year old kid, this is something hard to forget. As a footnote, Grosjean was one of the most vocal drivers against the Halo. What a freaking irony.
Brilliant argument on death and risk. I remember how bad I felt when Jules passed away, it was the first time I had that experience since I started following F1. I still can't see the replay of the accident, it makes me feel horrible. After that, I always get tense when a yellow flag suddenly appears on the screen and they don't show immediately the accident. I can't believe people like the feeling of seeing someone at risk, to maybe witness the passing of someone. Totally agree that those people are not F1 fans, they are vultures.
@@TheEvapiiShow Mistakes should not be deadly though - risky and race-ending yes, but we're past the point where death on track should be an accepted fact of motorsport life
I understand your argument, but I don't agree to a certain extent. Imagine, for instance, that you were hit by a car on a zebra crossing. Even though you could be responsible for the accident by crossing inadvertently, a nasty accident could be avoided if the driver is alert and being cautious. Mistakes will eventually happen, but by adopting multiple safety measures we will probably avoid incidents like the one that happened in Japan 2014.
@@TheEvapiiShow Why do you think there are rail gates instead of just signs? Why do you think there are guard rails along the sides of steep hilly roads? Because just having signs are never enough. Therefore this argument holds no water. Signs are never enough to avoid danger
“Are F1 fans really here for the morbid thrill of injury?” The answer is hiding into another question: Why Liberty Media uses almost only crashes and accidents videos to promote F1 races around the world? Have a nice day CB.
Seems like this is the standard advertising approach for all racing series, not just F1. Much like the idea that "sex sells", promoting primal instincts get results. Sad but true.
I think crashes are a exciting part of the sport and with the cars nowadays you'll be ok even in big crashes. The main risk is the secondary collisions so at the high risk corners they should extend the runoff
as much as I love clarkson he has some seriously bad takes sometimes. I think he just likes being inflammatory because that kind of attention has helped him get to where he's at.
You're just the best. Your treatment is always nuanced, informative, and genuinely balanced. On issues like this, you do a great job of giving us what we need to really examine our opinions, while being very clear about when and why you're expressing your own feelings. Thank you!
As someone who's REALLY gotten into F1 only last year, and motorsport in general in passing as a consequence, I honestly can't begin to describe how much and how hard my stomach drops anytime I hear about _yet another_ mix-up at Eau Rouge and Radillon. It's only taken me _two seasons_ and a handful of crashes to become psychologically conditioned to dread what could happen at those corners every time a motorsport series comes to Spa. And honestly? You nailed it on the head. We absolutely can and SHOULD do what we can to mitigate the risk of death in motorsport. Out of all the circuits that the various top-tier motorsports race at, it seems as if Eau Rouge and Radillon are consistently the riskiest and crashiest corners, with how consistently there are crashes there. Personally I'm still not completely sold on not reprofiling the turns, but I'll skeptically watch what happens after the runoff areas are reprofiled, to see if they work to minimize cars getting flung back across the track. I guess if it doesn't work out then I won't have to do too much calling out for a change for F1 to give Spa the ultimatum to fix that section or they won't come back. :/
Before saying anything substantial about the video, damn that is one amazing outro you've got there now. As for Spa, here's hoping those planned changes reduce the number of accidents. That W Series crash was particularly disturbing to see so many caught up in it and with such force. Although again it proved just how important the Halo is or we'd have seen further serious injury or maybe even another weekend with a death. I'd also agree with you that anyone who finds a thrill in the possibility of injury or death really needs to take a long hard look at themselves.
Everyone that jumps up from airplanes using parachutes, astronauts, arctic explorers, racing drivers and so forth, all of them finds a thrill in risking the possibilities of serious injury or death. And they accept most of those risks for a meaningful career. Those who risk nothing, GET NOTHING. It is not them who need to take a long hard look at themselves, but rather those who fear risks. Calculate your risks and be prepared to accept some of it, to the best of your abilities.
I feel like the backlash from changing Eau Rouge will bring will quickly fade over time, kinda like how people critical of the halo were silenced after the Leclerc and Grosjean accidents.
I feel like it might not though, as it will have a preventative effect rather then a protective effect. With the Halo ot is easy to point out when it has clearly saved lives, but it is harder to point out when the old layout of a track would have resulted in a horrific crash.
It’s the car hitting the barriers and then spearing straight back on the circuit in front of cars. That’s a big issue and it’s scary seeing a car stranded in the middle of the track with cars wizzing by. W series. F3. And F1 this week and some weeks ago with GT cars. Saw some big crashes there. All very reminiscent of F2 a couple years ago. That impact of the car hitting the barrier and then the car coming back onto the track and cars collecting one another is a death trap. I hope something can be done about the landscape to help push the barriers back further.
I think widening the runoff area, especially the left side will be a good idea. The same on the right would be good too, but a more difficult one to resolve.
Gravel is the answer. For me Spa hasn’t been the same since 2007 when they got rid of the bus stop and added run off everywhere. If anything it’s actually more dangerous now.
I'd love to hear you out on race direction, particularly under Masi. I personally am appalled at times by how bad it is, so hearing your more nuanced take on it might help me somewhat accept what they're doing, while still leaving room for me to want to push for changes.
Personally I think he is used as a scapegoat by everyone because there always has to be someone to blame and someone to complain about. When the camera cuts to him, he's not by himself and he's probably just as much at fault as many others in the FIA. But while I'm not defending some of the mistakes he's made, the 'race' did make me feel slightly sorry for him. He has to enact and enforce the utter embarrassment that is the sporting regulations. They are so poorly written, they are so needlessly vague and it's almost applause worthy how there are so many rules that contradict each other. It's no wonder there was all the confusion because you also need first class telepathy to understand the bloody rules! I think it's also worth considering that Massi has only been in the role for 3 years whereas Charlie Whiting had been there for over 20. And his role came to him slowly, he was a mechanic so he knew all the games, he then became head of scrutineering, then became race director. Masi was thrown into it all at once. But I think people also forget that Whiting himself wasn't infallible. Indygate happened under him, there was the Ferrari bargeboard controversy at Malaysia '99 and so did Suzuka 2014. Yes of course 3 years is still a long time but it's less than 15% of the time whiting had. Whiting had the other 85% of that time to gain respect between him and everyone else. I also don't think the FIA to team radio is helping perceptions because it often makes him out to be a headless chicken. But because we've never had it during Whiting's tenure, it's entirely possible he flapped just as much and we never knew. Personally I think Masi's job is too big for 1 person now. I think it needs to be split among multiple people, including Masi or not. So one person in charge of flags, one in charge of barrier repair, one in charge of scrutineering and so on. Sorry about the essay, I flap on way too much but I always try to back up my thoughts rather than whipping them out and hoping for the best.
@@PuncakeLena I think the worst was at Turkey when they let them go out with the crane still on track. Again I'm not saying Masi has been good. I just think people are blaming him because someone obviously has to be at fault and it can't just be a case of shite happens. I rewatched qualifying and when the session started, it was definitely wetter than Q2 but I don't think it was as bad as it was when lando crashed. It very much snap of a finger stuff and the weather really went downhill during the outlaps. No one quite expected it to change that quickly and that's why so many were faffing with tyres in the garage. But i agree that it should have been red flagged way sooner than it was. Probably when it showed lando driving through that deluge down to Eau Rouge...
@@joeogle7729 Yeah I was just commenting on the part that shoved blame towards him for what happened on Sunday because I basically had no counter for the rest. As for Turkey, I knew I forgot something...
@@PuncakeLena yeah Sunday was a cock up to say the least. But seeing as Masi used to be director of V8 supercars in Australia who have a rather 'relaxed' view compared to F1 as to how wet a track can be, I like to think there was a genuine attempt but I can't help but agree that those 2 laps were completely cynical like everyone else. But as I said, he's ultimately screwed by the aforementioned bag of bollocks that is the sporting regs. I think the main takeaway from Sunday has to be how out of date and broken the sporting regs are. Everyone needs to sit down and rework them from start to finish. It's not just wet weather and red flag rules that are broken, it's the whole thing. Also isn't it nice to have a proper debate on the internet...
The corner doesn't need to be changed, even if it’s more dangerous than a lot of corners. I’ve seen a couple of people wanting a chicane there instead but I don’t see the point in ruining corners when other solutions are around. The runoff and barrier angles just need to change.
I don't know why angled barriers are still accepted. Different issues, but Grosjean's crash at Bahrein last year was also made worse than it should be because of them.
@@guilhermeodai When it comes to Grosjeans crash, I don't get why they don't just put a wall there and tyres. It is a relatively straight piece of track
The whole appeal of golf is the thrilling risk that someone might get hit by a ball and die. In bowling, we admire the courage of the athletes who might get their fingers stuck in the ball and get carried down the lane into that awful machine at the end. Billiards players can lose an eye to those pointy sticks they're always sharpening. Danger is an inescapable part of sport.
Part of what makes F1 great is the innovation it brings. This comes in all forms. Safety is and should be focus, consideration, and want for everyone onwers, teams, drivers, and fans alike.
Gravel Strips. That's all we need to help enforce track limits. Not a full trap that carries the risk of skipping cars into the wall, but a small strip that sits on the track limits, about half of a car's width. Enough of a space to slow the car and kick up dust, but not enough to spear it away dangerously.
Safety solutions shouldn't be considered "babies'" stuff. Those who have this kind of opinion wouldn't say stupid things like that if they had racing drivers in their families. I almost shit my pants seeing Lando's crash. I just knew that he wouldn't finish Raidillon, and that half second delay 'til his McLaren appear on screen made me think: "fuck. It happened." I wonder how stupid a person should be to consider someone else as just a "sacrifice meat who drive cars only to satisfy my adrenaline needs that i can't do by myself".
its not about sacrificing them, every corner should be as safe as possible, but do not take away the need of skill to handle those corners as that is what makes racing series intresting. In other words improve the runoff zones to make failures unleathal but do not make it impossible to make failures in the first place.
@@Mucknuggle exactly. No one's saying it shouldn't be difficult, just that a single mistake shouldn't result in serious injury or death. A mistake should end your race/qualifying, but that should be it.
There's no skill required for Eau Rouge anymore for the most part (i.e. in the dry) - as CB noted, it's easily flat in a modern F1 car, as well as other formulae. It's low-challenge but high-risk, when we want it the other way around (such as at Pouhon, which is now considered *the* challenge of Spa in fair conditions)
@@byst33 exactly. Here in Brazil we had sad comments from a presenter at the TV sports show. At least, his face went Ferrari red as he tried to state that F1 has an inherent risk (as if nobody knew that) and implying that drivers should shut up and race. Death is unacceptable. Severed limbs are unacceptable.
The tarmac on the runoff is lethal. In the 90s when there was gravel you didnt have cars bouncing back onto the racing line after Radillon. Zanardi, Zonta, Villeneuve, all stayed in the gravel despite the violence of the crashes.
I personally think there should be a special flag which sets a speed limit for every car on track whenever a car spins at raidillon to avoid accidents like hubert or in the W series. Its a blind corner and i still think that a lot of drivers still go to fast whenever there is a yellow flag or double yellow flay especially in a blind corner like raidillon.
I get the crashes are a thrill to some, after watching so many die or being seriously injured, I enjoy the bit where they walk away from a trashed car and throw their gloves on the floor the most
I watched bahrain 2020 with a few friends who never really watched F1. When Grosjean crashed they all got excited because it was big. Im not blaming them at all, it was their first race and they didnt know the risks, but as someone who knew the worst case scenarios it made me sick in the moment because i knew they could have just cheered a mans death. The drivers walking away from the acident is definitely the best bit. Thankfully for me thye kept on watching F1 and now understand the risks, so when Lando crashed at Eau Rouge they didnt cheer at all, just looked to see if he was OK, as i think everybody did.
If the track layout was ever to be changed. The only changed I would willingly accept seeing is the restoration of the old route the track took from Eau Rouge, into the hairpin before coming back out onto the straight. Not sure if any of the drivers would want the track layout to be changed though. Eau Rouge into Radillion seems to be universally loved. However, we absolutely need to see some serious investment and an expanded runoff in the area.
@@mildertduck I suppose most people just remember the rest of it and not the wee hairpin. Definitely something worth being remembered and talked about though!
People often aren't aware that the current layout of the section wasn't created until 1982, when it got straightened out. And it was probably to get more runoff area, I might add.
Spent my kid years going to Spa with my father, and iirc the biggest downside of the gravel in the left part of that curve was that when rain was pouring as it often do in Belgium, trenches would form, torrents of water would rush down ultimately dragging a lot of gravel along in Eau Rouge. All that would make a real mess in more than one occasion, not only forcing many yellow/red flags, but also some really lengthy clean up sessions where they had to recover all that gravel and put it back uphill. Straightening the left wall sounds like a good option though.
As a former nascar fan (too many reasons to go in to), I absolutely understand the sentiment. Even if the only casualty is cars (and at Daytona, Indianapolis, Pocono, that's a good day), who wants to see cars in pieces? And when people are in them, all the worse! I love Pocono, it's unique, it's special, and it's dangerous. I am a huge Robert Wickens fan, and when he was injured there, it happened to be a day where I got to catch the race with my dad. I had been talking for months with him about this new hot shoe driver, and when they threw out the red flag, we were both pretty sure we watched that kid die. If you wanna see broken cars, find a demo derby or a trailer race, if you like racing, you need to be a proponent of safety. Never get off that soapbox Stuart!
Very strong words about "acceptable risks and borderline death" and duality of fans at the end of video. (and please take everything i said below with grain of salt, opinion approacing) Recently, bunch of people started portraying drivers as gladiators YET AGAIN (as if Halo introduction happend in terms of negativity towards recent "GP" outcome) who supposedly live only to "deliver amusement because they're here for us: most importantly, they're people who shouldn't be afraid of death - of anything for that matter! If not, why are they even racing?" We're talking about folks who do it for themselves because of passion for motorsport, not slaves who battle with their own lives for entitled public which dont know anything better than watching them going at it! As much as we love spectacular racing we shouldn't thrive for crashes and drivers going over their limits and boundaries for "best crowds and fans at home" to watch. Pure joy and fun comes from wheel-to-wheel action while displaying brilliance and mastery, mere inches between zero and hero - that's racing. And demolition derby with unnecessery risks which some "bunch of wankors" wants to witness has none of it.
Yep, Drive to Survive haven't helped this through their title along with portraying the drivers as risking their lives everytime they get in the car. Motorsport isn't about driving as close to danger as possible, it's about driver talent and team engineering
While I agree completely with your point, the general view on gladiators is flawed. There were gladiator schools where slaves and volunteers were trained to perform as specific classes of gladiator. These classes were usually matched up against each other so that their strenghts and weaknessess would lead to interesting fights. Certain gladiators were so succesful and popular there are findings of "merchandise" and "fanart" graffiti of them, and they would earn a crap load of money for their school or owner. These stars would sometimes be pitched against each other and their fights would be the highlight of the day. They would never risk them actually dying, so it was uncommon for them to fight to the death. If there was a fight to the death it was so uncommon that it was specifically advertised that way beforehand. And even if they sustained a severe injury the doctors of the gladiator schools were one of the bests in the empire. there's findings of medical forceps which almost look modern in design, and there's even records of an operation that took out a small window in someones skull so they wouldn't die from pressure in the brain. In short, professional gladiators did not risk death each time they set foot in the colliseum and should better be compared to WWE wrestlers with swords. "OH MY GAWD IT'S CLAUDIUS WITH A STEEL CHAIR" (also sorry for the wall of text)
I was flagging at Detroit. Stationed at 6A on Saturday for the races, I didn’t believe my eyes when Rosenqvist hit the wall. Then I saw part of the car climb the fence (the way the wall curves I couldn’t see the actual tire wall). This was my first major accident at any level in my 2.5 years of flagging. It shocked me and was a sudden reminder that this is a life or death sport sometimes. If I was in Europe, I would refuse to work that area. There are certain areas I do not like flagging at Mid Ohio and other tracks, whether it be for my safety or the drivers’. That area definitely needs changed, and also BRANDS HATCH NEEDS CATCH FENCING! Last month a corner marshal was killed at turn 1 because a car climbed the railing and tumbled into the station. Nothing was changed, and sure enough last weekend a McLaren in the SRO series climbed the guardrail and went straight into the trees. Had then been a marshal post, there would have been another serious incident.
Damn...if I hadn't taken a job in Wisconsin, I might've been down there with you in that corner. I may see about working events at Road America next year cause it's something I've talked about doing but never really had the chance to.
I never understood how Mid-Ohio could have any dangerous flagger spots. Especially with the amount of money and how damn persnickety they are about the track and they still have people leaning out around fences to flag on the outside of turns....They have nothing but room for proper stations as well as remote operated zones. But no, re decorate the VIP tower again. that's fine.
Gday mate ,Talking about fencing mate ! You`r most Famous race the Indy 500 ! the front Straight is 1 Mile long & has no Fencing in front of the Pits . just a 2 Foot concrete wall !
@@cosmictywlite I mean you’re not wrong. I guess the reason for that is it’s never been an issue (not that it never will be). Tbh, most tracks don’t have catch fencing on the pit lane wall here in the states. I’ve never thought of that before
The biggest issue, and not only with eau rouge, is the cars bouncing back to the track, and having a blind corner/rain is an even bigger issue since you could collect the crashed car
100% agree. Also, I would like to point out that none of the people saying "Bunch of babies, real drivers would've raced in those conditions" were, you know, THE ACTUAL DRIVERS. You know, the ones who had the first hand experience to say "WE CAN'T SEE SHIT"
The crest is going to cause even more issues in 2022 when downforce is largely an underbody thing. That slight lift will make you lose a ton of downforce suddenly.
@@Fowey7 actually it could give same effect like aquaplanning, when it is no challenge - car just loses all control. One of the primary issues that got ground effect banned in the first place.
@@coreyward I'm actually not, I haven't followed formula 1 for such a long time. but since the regulations are getting changed to make it a part of the sport again I assumed they've figured out how to make it safe. if theres some issue with it that both f1 and fia missed when making the regulations, I'd be glad to hear about it
@@Fowey7 With ground effect, lifting the car off the ground significantly reduces the downforce applied to it. Historically cars relied on it so significantly that hitting the inside corner of a rumble strip or sausage curve could be enough to send the car hurtling off the track due to a lack of grip. Since you need tires on the ground to slow down quickly, it led to a lot of really bad accidents. Next year's regs don't allow for _that_ much ground effect, but if it's enough for the Eau Rouge heart-in-mouth lift the car up it would be even more dangerous than this year. Cheers!
Driving at 300 km/h will always be dangerous, no matter how many safety features you add. There's absolutely no reason not to implement every single safety improvement possible. In relations to Eau Rouge, the only issue is in my opinion that the cars bounce back on the track. That has to be solved.
@@Jeff_Bondd we can build islands in oceans, drain wetlands across a country, and turn mountains into quarries. I'm sure jim and bob can take a backhoe and flatten out a moderately sized run off area or sand pit
One thing I've been thinking about is how about slowing the cars down? Every time it's the tracks that get all the shit whether it's about the quality of racing or safety. The cars are constantly getting faster and faster and then everybody just expects the tracks to change. One day we will "enjoy" the sight of endless runoff areas like in Paul Ricard, because the cars get faster and everybody accepts that. Race tracks are seemingly always the ones that have a hard time. Ridiculous fees to hold races, people complaining about safety and racing. We have seen classic tracks get dropped from the calendar because the whole F1 circus is a fucking disaster. Hosting F1 is a financial nightmare for circuits and F1 just does what it wants, which means classic tracks get axed because they can't keep up. Does that sound right and fair? No! The tracks themselves are an insanely important part of the sport. Just as teams like Ferrari and McLaren hold a lot of value, so do tracks like Spa and Monza, both of which are struggling with finances or safety concerns right now. We need to balance things out with the sport.
2022 cars will likely be slower, and will hopefully be better at following too. However I can see why it's tough. There's instinctive appeal in continuous improvement. You see it in the never-ending horsepower increases on road cars too.
Fantastic video. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Having watched all forms of motorsports since the early 1970s (that I remember. Undoubtedly I watched it from birth because of Dad), I have seen far too many accidents which end with a fatality or "just" a life-changing injury. I don't want to see _anyone_ get as much as a scratch in the name of my entertainment. That doesn't entertain me at all, it just makes me cry. Radillon's run-off area _must_ be changed. There's no case for an argument about it in my eyes.
Honestly, wouldn't be mad at all if they restored the pre-1983 layout, the one where it went a bit deeper into the left, and was definitely not flat-out. At least it would be easy to add as an alternative, since it's all tarmac anyway.
That's what I've been wanting. When they made changes to the track they made it track wider as well at added wide shallow curbs which effectively widened the track even further. The problem though is this severely shallowed the corners, making them faster. What they should have done was widen the track in a way that wouldn't alter the racing line, taking into account drivers would use every inch of the the curbs. I think this in addition the the better runoffs would be the best solution, it would also restore the history of the corner and make the corner much more interesting and much more safe.
Spot on, as I always said, the issue is not the corner, it's that they are not putting proper safety like runoffs, gravel traps, etc on it and that the barriers are poorly designed.
I think that three corners motorsport cannot be changed as they stand above the rest. Two are not raced on F1, but I think changing the Carousel, Eau Rouge, and, my personal favorite, The Corkscrew would be beyond sacrilegious. I agree with you on increasing safety though, and am 100% behind altering areas around the track to make them as safe as possible.
I always thought I was weird for always hoping to see 20 finishers in a race. I think you've illuminated why I like to see all cars across the finish line.
Drivers will make mistakes, and end up leaving the track in a way that means they can't finish. It takes skill to drive an F1 car over dozens of laps, and a lapse in skill may mean you don't finish. That's fine - but none of that requires putting life and limb at risk.
The problem is that you don't need to just extend the runoff, you also gotta extend the Marshall roads, spots for them to stand, the entire structure needs to be strong enough for a crane to be driven on, ontop of several tonnes of gravel.
tbh, I say change the corner if they must. Obviously I'd prefer if they kept it but we still have: - Piscine - The entirety of Monza - Pouhon and Blanchimont - Turn 8 (you know which one) - 130R - Baku Castle - The run from Luffield to Stowe - Waite (Australia T11 - T12) - Senna esses - COTA T1 There's plenty of legendary corners that require skill and bravery in F1. If it costs too much to fix properly, which I don't think their gravel trap solution is doing, they would just remove it from the calendar and replace it with another bs super safety ring like Paul Ricard. I'd rather have Spa with no eau rouge than no Spa.
The runoff area could be partially tarmac and partially gravel travel so that drivers have a little bit of breathing room. If they go to far, however, they won't run the risk of bouncing back on to the track due to the gravel.
Well said, that part about safety - it's beyond me how people find that acceptable. Death and injury should not be apart of the show to any right-minded human being.
You're completely right. I don't even understand why they still race in real cars and tracks. The risk and possibility of injury should be completely eliminated when possible. They should race on the simulator only. Why leave the house at all?
I think I speak for all new fans when I say that any safety improvements can be made ought to be made. Those of us watching in the last couple years have SEEN young men saved by recent safety improvements (namely, the halo, and those lives being of Charles Leclerc and Tadasuke Makino). I would, frankly, accept changes to the Eau Rouge complex if it meant I wouldn't have to watch another driver die doing what they love. Drivers' lives come before tradition and history without question in my mind. I'm glad that it doesn't need to be changed, that improved runoff areas can be achieved to ensure driver safety. But I lost a lot of respect for Brundle and Croft when they were talking about the inherent danger of the sport, and the almost flippant way Martin spoke about people dying through that section. I would have expected Martin to understand the gravity of the danger of the sport.
I'm a recent returnee to F1 (last watched seriously around 2005) and almost right out of the gate was already leery of the commentating pair. I understand they often have to speak off the cuff and in the case of a drawn out Spa had to fan out into the most tangential topics but it's those moments that amplify the chances for them digging into their deepest biases. As the primary commentators of F1, especially for those watching the English broadcasts, they have to realize that their words have considerable weight. Aside from the race events, they are often the first contact between the spectators and the sport. With that said, even with all his shortcomings and idiosyncrasies, Croft is one of the better commentators in the world of sport broadcasting. Brundle is another matter entirely. I can't add any more to what you or Chain Bear have articulated. No holes could be poked through. I'm just adding to the engagement that yes, there are more in us in the safety camp than there are waddling in the quagmire of survivorship bias and blind nostalgia. If I had a nickel for every re-quote of Senna, etc, etc...
You can add Grosjean to that list of people saved by the halo. Without the halo he certainly would have been decapitated going into that barrier at Bahrain last year...
Well remove Monaco from the calendar and ban all road racing including the TT, in fact ban all motorbike racing and limit the cars to 50 mph, that should make it safe enough
"I would, frankly, accept changes to the Eau Rouge complex if it meant I wouldn't have to watch another driver die doing what they love." Maybe they love the adrenaline that going through Eau Rouge/Radillion gives them. Slapping a chicane in the middle of Eau Rouge for "safety" isn't probably what the drivers would want nor what the fans should want. Which brings me to my point: "any safety improvements can be made ought to be made" is the wrong way to look at it. Racing is inherently dangerous. There comes a point then when improvements for the sake of safety ruin the spectacle. Changing the track portion of Eau Rouge/Radillion would be an instance of that line being crossed. Change the run off all you want, but that series of turns are one of the most iconic because it is one of the most dangerous but most thrilling sequence of turns on any track. As for Brundle and Croft, I actually gained respect for them after that part of the broadcast.
Change Eau Rouge and bring back Tamburello, that’s my philosophy. And by Eau Rouge I mean the runoff and barriers, not so much the corner itself. If Senna’s death was enough to change Tamburello, why is Hubert’s death less important? The loss of a life is the loss of a life regardless of how many championships you’ve won
@@triptechable my favourite driver, love the dude, but that excuse doesn’t fly for me. I don’t disagree with them changing Tamburello, I’m just saying 2021 F1 cars would probably be more equipped to handle it now in its original form. If something’s a problem, fix it.
@@matticusrenwood I think the reason it was changed so quickly was because two drivers (Ratzenberger then Senna) were both killed at the same corner, as well as serious injuries both on the same weekend and leading up to it
@@triptechable Hate to say it but I think you're right. I remember a stretch of nine months starting in May 2000 where four drivers in NASCAR were killed in very similar accidents - two at the exact same track and corner, that being T3 at New Hampshire - and they didn't do anything for the young 19-year-old upstart (Adam Petty). They didn't do anything for the midfielder who had just switched teams (Kenny Irwin). They didn't do anything for the journeyman in the lower division (Tony Roper). It wasn't until they, like in F1, lost an iconic legend in Dale Earnhardt that NASCAR woke up and started to act. I really think that the Eau Rouge/Raidillon section does need to be looked at after this string of accidents, though it will need to be done right. If they can bring the barrier on the left out effectively, that would be a good start.
I've noticed that people who use the "snowflake" insult are ironically some of the most emotions over facts people in existence. The seething need to throw around insults at people who disagree with you is a sign of emotional immaturity. Here's an indisputable fact: focusing on safety does not hinder entertainment to any meaningful extent. I still remember some of the braindead takes from when the Halo was first introduced. Now everyone loves it because people are too short-sighted when it comes to change. This applies to more than just motorsport but life in general.
That is where you are wrong. Not ALL changes due to "safety concerns" hinder entertainment, but some do, and some do it to a huge extent. Halo was the first kind. Changing Imola, Hockemheim and letting Tilke go wild on butchering iconic and historic tracks are the second kind. Changing the layout of Eau Rouge/Raidillion/Kemmel is the last kind.
Wonderful analysis. The nature and science of the corner suggests that even with the wall on the left straightened out, the cars will drift back on to the track, depending on at which part they actually lose traction in the first place. But the percentage suggests they will be in a rightward arc when traction is lost, sending them on a trackwards trajectory.
Like you mentioned, I think the worst part of eau rouge is the incline, when you reach the peak it unloads the car and you lose all downforce and control. If it wasn't so steep, cars would hopefully stay on the ground.
Yep, that's why we generally see car control losses much less in similar flat out highspeed corners like 130R. I don't even remember any crash at 130R in recent f1 times.
Gravel Traps always put you in danger of flipping, especially when you enter them sideways. Just widening the tarmac run-off area is just a very slight penalty. Maybe that abrasive run-off tarmac in combination with a widened run-off area like the french GP has could be a solution that penalises enough to prevent excessive corner-cutting but not puts the driver in danger of flipping and potentially flying over safety barriers like other drivers in other open-wheel series did (okay, e.g. Sophia Flörsch didnt flip while being in a gravel trap in F3 but you get the point that flipping creates unpredictable crash situations)?
To qoute Chip Ganassi about Dan Weldon, “we all know the lines, he knew the risk or he was doing what he wanted to do. It doesn’t make the blow (Weldon’s death) any softer”.
Maybe weirdly, I'd say maybe people are even more attached to the names of the corners themselves, Eau Rouge and Raidillon, then about what those corners are. They are probably the most iconic names of F1's corner, ever. They are, in a certain way, like a sweet comfy blanket for F1 fans. That in mind, as needed those changes are required, we must deal with any changes very carefully. Excellent analysis on the topic, M. Chain Bear!
I'm so frustrated seeing F1 fans talking about safety like it's a joke. This weekend in Spa was a good example, there's been countless people saying that they should've just raced anyway, despite the fact that the drivers couldn't see anything. And still people are bemoaning the halo even after Grosjean's accident in Bahrain where he 100% would've died without it. To be entirely honest, I think F1 fans are some of if not the worst sports fans on the damn planet, and that's not even touching on the overt racism exhibited by many of them.
I was with you until you said the halo saved Grosjean and complained about "overt racism" in F1. Evidence suggests that the halo could have been the reason he was stuck in his car as long as he was rather than being able to just climb out, so it's certainly not the definitive reason he was fine. That said, the halo is fantastic and needs to be there, let's just not credit it where it doesn't necessarily deserve it. I'm not going to do anything other than laugh at the " ra-ra-racism!" part of your post tho lmfao, you people see that shit everywhere nowadays when there's hardly any anywhere outside of shit holes like Reddit!
So you think he could've taken the guardrail to his helmet at that speed and survived it? Because I don't think that would've happened. And I'm not going to respond to your dismissal of my comment on racism in the fan community because if you don't see it that probably means that you've willfully blinded yourself to it. I've seen so many terrible comments about Lewis Hamilton directly about the fact that he's black. I'm not even really fan of him myself but when it turns into being about race (which it often does) that's just unacceptable.
Racing, particularly stock car racing, was one of my first interests in life. There was a span of about 16 months where i saw 3 people die in real time and one was off camera but was a known driver as well.....that's just Nascar. I saw a guy in person wreck head first and later pass away. All as a 9-10 year old little kid....so for about 19 years i never watched a race. I began watching again last year and remember why i fell in love with this stuff. The safety nowadays is incredible, i am loving this stuff now
I remember, only too well, the years when fatalities were the norm, and when it was a rare season when no F1 driver died. I've got no desire to see that happen again.
I dont understand people watching races for crashes and feeling happy when drivers take up enormesly high amount of risk. I myself want to see them fight against each other on the track and drive as fast as physically possible and get out 100% safe and well even after crashing. No idiotic risks should be taken. I think runn off areas would be the best solution for spa.
my problem with changing the layout of the section is not "that its a classic" but that, its the single most iconic corner in racing, period. the karousel is the only even remotely close corner in terms of iconic-ness and fame. its too important of a corner
One thing I mentioned… I think a bridge across the track as you enter Eau Rouge that has marshal signaling and lights on it would be a great improvement. I know they have their steering wheel lights but their eyes at that point are staring up the hill at the point they predict is the Radiallon apex. More signaling could definitely help in split second instances where we see the dreaded second impacts. Take the W race for example. If there had been the yellow/red striped flag colors coming from the bridge area, the first driver may have been alerted rain had significantly increased since the last time through and maybe everyone just eases off that little bit.
Honestly, I think the drivers that are suggesting to bring the gravel traps back are 100% right. Exactly like was stated in the video drivers will just use the run off areas as extra race track (I actually think the reason why they were removed was because the FIA demanded it). Since quite a few years they have a vendetta against gravel traps and they have an obsession with run off areas. Look at Paul Ricard for instance. That said, extra run off at the left hander is a good thing. Preventing the catapulting back onto the track is going to improve safety immensely. Combined with a gravel trap, These would all be good changes. However, I also think it's easy to blame the circuit, while there are also other factors in play. Like I said before the drivers are often also taking more risks because they have extra run off areas (exactly the point some of the drivers made when they talked about adding gravel traps back). But also in the specific case of F1... maybe try to build a car that actually is able to drive in wet weather conditions... Recently I read something about one of the F1 team bosses or engineers saying that they have full wet weather tires, but that with the way the cars are built there's a very thin line in being able to use them and not race at all. The cars just suffer immediately as soon as there's some significant rain. So it's either a race where they can use intermediate tires or they don't drive at all. The full wet tires are effectively useless... Also if a driver says over the radio that they shouldn't be continuing with the qualifying then the race director should take that seriously. If they don't and an accident happens, it's always easy to blame the track and not yourself. But then again that's something the FIA (particularly in F1) is really good at...
This is the same thing nascar did years ago when they made restrictor plate races at the high speed tracks. It bunched the cars up and made everyone wait for the big one. Hell nascar marketed that as a reason to watch. The big one would be an accident that involved 10 cars or more every race. And nascar didn’t care just kept on because people loved to see it. I’ll never understand why people want to see cars crash. I want to see them race and if drivers don’t have to wonder if this is the corner that is going to kill them they are much more likely to drive better and get better racing. If the penalty for messing up a corner is a broke car and not lose of life drivers will take more risks.
Lando's crash scared me; he's such a fun character and an amazing driver and the way he rebounded across the track gave me flashbacks. I whole-heartedly agree with everything said in this video.
I just had a bad feeling for the entire weekend. Every time they pushed through there I always hold my breath. There are way too many incident that weekend.
Couldn't agree more. As Martin Brundle said in the '1' film: We enjoy seeing a crash, but we don't want to see someone hurt. Motorsport will always be dangerous, yes. But if the outcome of these crashes can be altered to avoid death, then that is what needs to be done. I'll never forget the horrid feeling I had when watching the Bahrain GP last year, wondering why at first they were deliberately not showing anything of Grosjean's crash as they were waiting for confirmation he was alive. The images they released afterwards (And yes, probably replayed a bit too much in the immediate aftermath), but the feeling that someone we watch each race weekend and is one of the 20 main people we put our focus on might have died in front of our eyes was almost too much to bear. I'm thankful that the only live races I've watched (Been an F1 fan since 2002) where there's been a driver fatality is Japan 2014 (Never seen the crash, from descriptions of it I don't think it's one I want to see either), and Le Mans a few years before that when the barrier was placed right in front of a tree so didn't deform in the way we've become used to. I hope I can keep it that way and not have to see a driver lose their life in the name of 'entertainment'.
Easy solution: change the sweeping right at Eau Rouge (9:45) into a kink. It's not a chicane, but it scrubs 20-30km off their speed. It only requires moving the wall back and a small amount of repaving. Just as important, get rid of the tire barriers on the right. Replace them with tecpro or SAFER to prevent cars from bouncing off.
Awesome video, as always... The amount of effort you put into every little detail of your videos is outstanding. The writing, editing, the animations. This new outro is what made me comment here, but I can't forget all the other skills.
Fantastic analysis. One thing though: I think there's no need to do the "no true scottsman" arguement about people who are excited by crashes. I think the risk of a crash vs reward of a pass is the most exciting part of racing, but I never want to see crashes, so I agree that morbid thrills have no place in motor racing, or any sport if I'm honest. I think these fans start by being childishly excited by death and destruction grow into fans who appreciate close racing, then the driver drama and the technical battlefield that is F1. That's pretty much been my journey since I started watching F1 with my dad as a young boy - re-enacting crashes with hotwheels then, now reading technical directives from the FIA and commenting on the unwritten parts. It's something that fans grow into, so I don't think they need to be excluded from the love of the sport, but instead shown all the other enjoyable aspects of F1 instead.
I am an old guy. Been watching F1 and IndyCars (CART/CHAMP/whatever) since the 80s. Honestly, back then we only had 1 television and when we got home Sunday morning, racing was the only thing my dad watched that day. I've seen too many drivers get killed or seriously injured. I am grateful that it is rare these days and hope it keeps improving. We all want to see drivers giving their all and taking some risks, but I don't want to see a huge crash ending in death or career ending injury.
I’m glad you touched on the criticisms of F1 being “too soft” now, watching the Grand Prix this weekend and hearing Martin Brundel say he’s gone out in worse and expects the race to go forth was horrible and I just wanted to shake him. Especially considering he had a few close calls in F2 and raced alongside great drivers who sadly lost their lives too soon behind the wheel of F1 cars. The risks were too great and I’m glad the race didn’t happen.
Especially since yes, Brundle went out in worse on two occasions off the top of my head. Australia 89 he got rear-ended by Senna because he literally couldn’t see Brundle’s red light. And Japan 94, when he went off at the same place as another car (same corner & situation as Jules in 2014!) and broke a marshal’s legs, very nearly went under the crane himself. If anyone should be aware of the dangers of these conditions it’s him.
@@kevsxe exactly well said, I was told about the Senna incident a couple days ago after talking to someone else about it. I expect more from the punditry on Sky Sports, I do value his expertise on occasion but offhand comments like that ruin the experience for me.
It would arguably add to the challenge of driving an F1 car through that section, now that it’s basically taken flat out these days. Safer, and probably a better separator of driver talent, if done right. Win, win.
I'd like to point out that the only reason Grosjean is alive and still racing at the moment after his horrifying crash in Bahrain is that after everything went wrong, everything else went right: Fire Retardant suit and gloves protected him from the flames for long enough for him to get out; medical personnel were there almost immediately to assist; and probably most importantly, the cockpit of the car was designed to take the impact and protected Grosjean from the worst of the impact. If people die, they can't keep on racing. If people end up paralysed, they can't keep on racing. Safety should always be the number one concern. Not everything can be made safe, but a lot of the danger can be mitigated without compromising the track layout or the racing.
Great vid. It is a wonderful corner sequence but it's absolutely worth opening up the run off of the left hand side to increase the safety. Don't mind the idea of gravel there as well. then it can still be taken at full speed and reward good driving, but punish mistakes in a safe way. Love your vids-keep up the good work!
You really nailed it. I am undecided on what has to change exactly at Eau Rogue-Radillion to make it more safer except a wider runoff area on the left side of Radillion. That one is undenieable necessary. You either do that or you have to get rid of the classic Eau Rogue-Radillion sequence.
Every time a car drives through Eau Rouge, I still hold my breath after what happened in 2019. When Norris' car hit the barrier in the quali the only thing I was thinking was 'don't let there be another car, don't let there be another car'. The biggest 'problem' with Eau Rouge is mostly what almost everyone agrees on: it bounces the cars back on the track. So that's the part that needs to be changed, but they need to change that on both sides of the track. Also something that discourages the drivers to use these runoff areas would be amazing. If you look at the accident in the W-series, it's crazy that the last car just came plowing in there. If it was because of the weather or because they just took the runoff area it doesn't matter, but that car should have been slowed down. Luckily nothing bad happened out of it, but if it was slowed down, it might have changed a lot of the eventual outcome it might even not have made it a major accident at all. Now I am totally not well versed into any technology or thingy that could do that so that's to the bigger brain-people, but as long as runoff areas don't slow cars down, drivers will see them as an escape and it's waiting for the next bad accident to happen. Not only do we need to change the corner, but also the drivers' mentality
Sounds like that track has a similar issue to what Walkens Glen had a few years ago, where there was a section of the barrier that kept ejecting cars back onto the track... and the "Change the barrier profile, not the track profile" was indeed the answer. So at least there is also precident for that solution.
Not the corner, runoff area YES!
The funny thing is all these changes are already happening as Spa is getting renovated for 2022.
In some ways this video isn't needed
@@danielo7985 A lot of people want spa to fill the spare slot later this season. That would be before the renovations. Also, other cars will race there in the mean time, and just because formula 1 may not be coming back this year, doesn't mean the drivers in other cars do not deserve a safe track.
Yes
@@danielo7985 YESSSSS
If that fixes the issue. If it doesn't I don't think we should draw this arbitrary red line.
Its interesting how people calling for change and people resistant to change actually want the same thing, for a change in the barriers. I was arguing with a guy earlier and as soon as I clarified that I wanted the barriers changed not the track he agreed with me immediately.
But if you extend the barriers is it just gonna make the cars try go faster? They can risk going faster because they know if they screw it up there is abit more run off. But going faster will hit the wall faster?
I don’t know just hard to figure out I guess
@@Baba-eo3uc most modern racing cars, from prototypes to single seaters to GT3s drive that corner flat or nearly flat anyways. The difference of speed they can possibly gain is therefore minimum imo
@@Baba-eo3uc they already go full throttle how would they go faster?
@@Shichao112 that’s a good point
@@Baba-eo3uc but your argument will get interesting when it rains, tho no one would drive it significantly faster than the grip limit anyways, since that will just throw away their lap and waste at least 2 min of their limited time in the session
The tracks fine. The left hand wall being “straight lined” is the correct fix all day long.
You keep the corner but with less risk of death
i mean come on how expensive can it be for the circuit on the biggest racing championship in the planet to dig up a hill and drop some landfill on the other side?
@@SilkCutJaguarXJR- - they would have a very larger amount of the required materials just from flattening the left hill. Nothing to stop that being used in the right side…
@@SilkCutJaguarXJR- how expensive it can be? How about 18 million Euros? That is how expensive it can be.
Spa makes about 30 million Euros a year, so that is akin to more than HALF of its yearly income to "fix" that.
It is pretty expensive, but they will do it, because it was required, because fans asked, because the FIA pressured. They will do it, despite having more than half of their income being spent on it.
@@sombraarthur shit
@@sombraarthur honestly they should give full openness about the costs, plans and what they can reasonably spend on it and if they cant fully pay for it themselfs go for a crowdfund. I'm willing to chip in and I believe lots and lots of others would be willing to pay so the corner itself can be kept as is while making the surrounding safer. Put all the funders names on the barrier and that 18m shouldnt be that hard.
Nailed it
yes
I suggest you a video redesigning the 2022 F1 car. But... the chassis itself
Yes
NO!
2 I
The problem is the barrier rebounds cars back onto the track instead of catching them. That's because it's tyres not tecpro
It doesn't necessarily needs to be a TecPro barrier, it could be a S.A.F.E.R. barrier
They need massive run off so if you do lose it you are well clear of the track and maybe even have gravel or something to slow you down before a wall collision
@@andre_star7776 Absolutely not. SAFER barriers are TERRIBLE for frontal impacts. They are only good for very shallow angle impacts. TecPro would absorb a lot more. I think they should have the tyre barrier and then a layer of tecpro in front
@@ChicaneryF1 SAFER was designed with all impacts in mind. This was made for IMS and the Indy 500 when cars at 370 KPH can get loose in a corner and a countersteer would snap it straight into one (See Sebastien Bourdais' qualifying crash).
@@andre_star7776 SAFER barriers would be the way to go when the runoff is straight-lined. For now, TecPro would be better as it's designed for frontal impacts and arresting the car in a head-on
The corner is a fantastic corner and is not a problem. The runoff area's are the issue. It would take a bit of work to dig up some dirt and trees to create more runoff space, but not impossible.
Exactly.
The runoff doesn't cause accidents, the track and driver abilities do. You wouldn't need the runoff if the track wasn't flawed. IMO
I like your videos from the beginning, always like till the end.
It wouldn’t be that hard to build bigger run off areas and better drainage
@@Kyle-Russell It would. While it’s not all that apparent on TV footage of the circuit there’s a significantly higher bit of ground to the left of that complex of corners (with a small cliff/bank there), a a steep drop to the right. There’s watercourses in the mix too, so something would need to be done with those in addition to changes to the topography. Not as easy to solve as it would first seem.
I saw some people saying in social media that Senna would still have raced and today's drivers are a bunch of babies. I've never read such bullshit. Big part of Senna's lifework was to increase safety standards in F1 and motor racing in general. Not only that, the Australian GP in 1991 had similar situation and he was furious that the race was still happening (there are videos about it). People that say "Senna would have raced" need to have their concept of Senna and racing in general reviewed.
From a Brazilian Senna fan.
exactly this. while senna was a furious racer, he always was others first when it came to safety. people who say that this sport is now "soft" or whatever incredibly out of touch
He still ran in that race though.
Lmao today's cars are more powerful than those from that tjme
Same with Lauda tho. People sayin in the old days they'd raced that, are just wrong lol.
same idiots don't realise that with better safety SENNA WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN RACING
Change Eau Rouge/Raidlio, no
But improving the safety feature, defined yes.
The safety feature definitely needs to be changed to avoid another bounce back to the track after a collision. Maybe increase the runoff area or use a different type of barrier.
iirc there was a plan to change the barrier so the cars wouldn't bounce back to the track but the circuit owners didn't want to expend the money or they didn't even have it in the first place
@@aqpatt4675 Spa is apparently having financial issues. Even before Covid.
@@TheStargov Spa is also wanting to host more series. You can't have your cake and eat it.
They need to make the run off area on the right side of Radillion wider as well as change the shape of the run off itself. Turn the end area (that curves back toward the track) and make it into a cul-de-sac or dead end going further right.
That way if it’s utilized people can’t take advantage and continue back on the track without reversing, it’ll also allow for less impactful crashes with the increased margin for error
@@Sticktothemodels A cul-de-sac type deal wouldn't work halfway through what's basically a straight. what if someone spins in such a way they hit the divider between the runoff and the track? the runoff you think off only works in street circuits with sharp corners they don't take at full speed.
I think Seb’s reaction to Lando’s crash says it all. They are the ones out there risking their lives. Their opinions matter way more than the fans or anyone else.
Disagree. Their opinions matter zero as drivers because this is a form of entertainment and the audience is the ones that determines if it’s worthwhile. The audience is a film decides if the film is with paying to watch, not the actors.
And Landos crash appears to be a result of the driver action not aquaplaining on a sloped roadway. If folks want a super safe racing sport then go create a new series and do that and stop ruining F1 . If the entire calendar starts to look like the Middle East tracks and Paul Richard in France the sport is toast.
@@InterCity134 the classic slippery slope argument.
@@InterCity134 Well, the sport is getting safer and the popularity is growing with each day, so you're alone with that line of thought.
@@InterCity134 so by that logic, if I want to buy a TV I can pay as little as possible because I'm the customer and I get to decide
Without the fans these drivers dont get paid Millions of euros.
having watched one of my racing idols, one at this very circuit at the aforementioned corner in 1985 (Stefan Bellof) die tragically and another at San Marino in 1994. I have always hoped and wished such grim fates would never befall another driver. The men and women in the cars are athletes, not gladiators dueling to the death.
What fans should want is the drivers who push the edge of adhesion, speed, etc. be rewarded when they can pull it off and be penalized when they can't pull it off but not at risk of their lives. That's why I agree that it's the runoff that needs to be improved. It looks like the already planned changes should help a lot.
Yes exactly! that's why I'm such a fan of gravel traps, and why I despise those sausage kerbs some circuits use to penalise drivers.
Mistakes should cost drivers the race, not their lives.
@@tompw3141 The only thing I would add is that driver's mistake(s) should cost them time on the track/in the race, then cost them the race by having to withdraw/retire the car, Not cost them injuries or even their lives.
Yeah, Romain geting out of the wreck was one of the best moments in last year's F1.
Thank you for including the last part on "Danger Lovers". It's just tarmac, if we need to lose a piece of track or keep a life, we 100% should keep the life
Or we improve the runoff and everyone is happy
@@TheEvapiiShow Yeah, in this case improving the runoff is the ideal option AND a possible one at that. In situations where changing the corner is literally the ONLY option, I'm game for changing the corner at that point
Losing a piece of track doesn’t not guarantee no loss of life. It will however be the death knell of Spa.
danger is my middle name
@@Jabber-ig3iw spa is still an amazing track with or without eau rouge. how close minded do you have to be to think that, holy shit.
Alonso's Crash in Australia is probably one of the most memorable moments of F1 for me and one of my favorites, in hindsight obviously. Seeing him get into such a crash but get out of his car unscathed to me was such a powerful show of what the sport has achieved in terms of safety and how that hasnt changed the fact that drivers are still giving it their everything.
Exactly the same thing happened 20 years earlier to Martin Brundle at the same corner. It must have been so surreal to experience such as a thing as a driver, then watch history repeat itself as the commentator (on British TV) 20 years on!
I completely agree, it’s amazing how far safety has come along in this sport, even going back to 2000’s with Kubicas Accident…even then we came a long way since the 90s…I don’t think we would have Kubica,Alonso,Grosjean and many more if we didn’t move with safety. Even in NASCAR, the Newman bar saved Newman’s life in the 2020 500. The HANS and closed faced helmets saved countless lives in the past 20 years.
Safety should always be the 1st thing to consider before the race…Is it REALLY safe to drive what is essentially a 1000BHP carbon kite with airplane sized wings at 200+ MPH…No, there is definitely safer sports… like golf…but i think that we don’t want to see anyone die in a race…We have lost too many talents just for some hardass to say “toughen up snowflake”…
Excellent article. I have been following the sport for 56 years, and my first jolt was learning, age 8, that my hero Jim Clark had died in an accident. Later as a teenager, I saw many drivers die live on TV, including the most horrific of all, seeing Roger Williamson burning to death inside his upside-down car, as David Purley tried desperately to save him, while inept marshalls did nothing. Then, the wreck was covered by a tarp, with a burnt cadaver inside, as the race continued as if nothing had happened, so, every time the leading car went by the scene (back then cameras stuck to leading cars a lot), the mound of twisted automobile covered by a tarp with a body inside would come into view, and as a thirteen year old kid, this is something hard to forget. As a footnote, Grosjean was one of the most vocal drivers against the Halo. What a freaking irony.
Brilliant argument on death and risk. I remember how bad I felt when Jules passed away, it was the first time I had that experience since I started following F1. I still can't see the replay of the accident, it makes me feel horrible. After that, I always get tense when a yellow flag suddenly appears on the screen and they don't show immediately the accident. I can't believe people like the feeling of seeing someone at risk, to maybe witness the passing of someone. Totally agree that those people are not F1 fans, they are vultures.
Jules died because of his own mistake though
@@TheEvapiiShow Mistakes should not be deadly though - risky and race-ending yes, but we're past the point where death on track should be an accepted fact of motorsport life
@@revenger210 there is a reason double yellow flag were waved. If you ignore road signs, you can put yourself in danger of death aswell.
I understand your argument, but I don't agree to a certain extent. Imagine, for instance, that you were hit by a car on a zebra crossing. Even though you could be responsible for the accident by crossing inadvertently, a nasty accident could be avoided if the driver is alert and being cautious. Mistakes will eventually happen, but by adopting multiple safety measures we will probably avoid incidents like the one that happened in Japan 2014.
@@TheEvapiiShow Why do you think there are rail gates instead of just signs? Why do you think there are guard rails along the sides of steep hilly roads? Because just having signs are never enough. Therefore this argument holds no water. Signs are never enough to avoid danger
“Are F1 fans really here for the morbid thrill of injury?” The answer is hiding into another question: Why Liberty Media uses almost only crashes and accidents videos to promote F1 races around the world? Have a nice day CB.
Seems like this is the standard advertising approach for all racing series, not just F1. Much like the idea that "sex sells", promoting primal instincts get results. Sad but true.
The corner is NOT a real safety issue honestly
No risk, no fun
I think crashes are a exciting part of the sport and with the cars nowadays you'll be ok even in big crashes. The main risk is the secondary collisions so at the high risk corners they should extend the runoff
@@isuckatthisgame then go sky dive without parachute, that would be hell of fun.
Fantastic video. Couldn’t agree more with everything about it. Love how you used Clarkson in that bit too. Perfect choice for that.
as much as I love clarkson he has some seriously bad takes sometimes. I think he just likes being inflammatory because that kind of attention has helped him get to where he's at.
@@byst33 The dude is a living breathing bad take. And his F1 comments are some of his worse.
You're just the best. Your treatment is always nuanced, informative, and genuinely balanced. On issues like this, you do a great job of giving us what we need to really examine our opinions, while being very clear about when and why you're expressing your own feelings. Thank you!
As someone who's REALLY gotten into F1 only last year, and motorsport in general in passing as a consequence, I honestly can't begin to describe how much and how hard my stomach drops anytime I hear about _yet another_ mix-up at Eau Rouge and Radillon. It's only taken me _two seasons_ and a handful of crashes to become psychologically conditioned to dread what could happen at those corners every time a motorsport series comes to Spa. And honestly? You nailed it on the head. We absolutely can and SHOULD do what we can to mitigate the risk of death in motorsport.
Out of all the circuits that the various top-tier motorsports race at, it seems as if Eau Rouge and Radillon are consistently the riskiest and crashiest corners, with how consistently there are crashes there. Personally I'm still not completely sold on not reprofiling the turns, but I'll skeptically watch what happens after the runoff areas are reprofiled, to see if they work to minimize cars getting flung back across the track. I guess if it doesn't work out then I won't have to do too much calling out for a change for F1 to give Spa the ultimatum to fix that section or they won't come back. :/
Before saying anything substantial about the video, damn that is one amazing outro you've got there now.
As for Spa, here's hoping those planned changes reduce the number of accidents. That W Series crash was particularly disturbing to see so many caught up in it and with such force. Although again it proved just how important the Halo is or we'd have seen further serious injury or maybe even another weekend with a death.
I'd also agree with you that anyone who finds a thrill in the possibility of injury or death really needs to take a long hard look at themselves.
Everyone that jumps up from airplanes using parachutes, astronauts, arctic explorers, racing drivers and so forth, all of them finds a thrill in risking the possibilities of serious injury or death. And they accept most of those risks for a meaningful career.
Those who risk nothing, GET NOTHING.
It is not them who need to take a long hard look at themselves, but rather those who fear risks. Calculate your risks and be prepared to accept some of it, to the best of your abilities.
I feel like the backlash from changing Eau Rouge will bring will quickly fade over time, kinda like how people critical of the halo were silenced after the Leclerc and Grosjean accidents.
I feel like it might not though, as it will have a preventative effect rather then a protective effect. With the Halo ot is easy to point out when it has clearly saved lives, but it is harder to point out when the old layout of a track would have resulted in a horrific crash.
It’s the car hitting the barriers and then spearing straight back on the circuit in front of cars. That’s a big issue and it’s scary seeing a car stranded in the middle of the track with cars wizzing by. W series. F3. And F1 this week and some weeks ago with GT cars. Saw some big crashes there.
All very reminiscent of F2 a couple years ago. That impact of the car hitting the barrier and then the car coming back onto the track and cars collecting one another is a death trap. I hope something can be done about the landscape to help push the barriers back further.
I saw in NASCAR the barriers keep the car and don’t send it back on the track wonder if that could work here
Is this a planned abstract for the video we’ve all just come here to watch?
I think widening the runoff area, especially the left side will be a good idea.
The same on the right would be good too, but a more difficult one to resolve.
Gravel is the answer. For me Spa hasn’t been the same since 2007 when they got rid of the bus stop and added run off everywhere. If anything it’s actually more dangerous now.
I'd love to hear you out on race direction, particularly under Masi. I personally am appalled at times by how bad it is, so hearing your more nuanced take on it might help me somewhat accept what they're doing, while still leaving room for me to want to push for changes.
Personally I think he is used as a scapegoat by everyone because there always has to be someone to blame and someone to complain about. When the camera cuts to him, he's not by himself and he's probably just as much at fault as many others in the FIA.
But while I'm not defending some of the mistakes he's made, the 'race' did make me feel slightly sorry for him. He has to enact and enforce the utter embarrassment that is the sporting regulations. They are so poorly written, they are so needlessly vague and it's almost applause worthy how there are so many rules that contradict each other. It's no wonder there was all the confusion because you also need first class telepathy to understand the bloody rules!
I think it's also worth considering that Massi has only been in the role for 3 years whereas Charlie Whiting had been there for over 20. And his role came to him slowly, he was a mechanic so he knew all the games, he then became head of scrutineering, then became race director. Masi was thrown into it all at once. But I think people also forget that Whiting himself wasn't infallible. Indygate happened under him, there was the Ferrari bargeboard controversy at Malaysia '99 and so did Suzuka 2014. Yes of course 3 years is still a long time but it's less than 15% of the time whiting had. Whiting had the other 85% of that time to gain respect between him and everyone else.
I also don't think the FIA to team radio is helping perceptions because it often makes him out to be a headless chicken. But because we've never had it during Whiting's tenure, it's entirely possible he flapped just as much and we never knew.
Personally I think Masi's job is too big for 1 person now. I think it needs to be split among multiple people, including Masi or not. So one person in charge of flags, one in charge of barrier repair, one in charge of scrutineering and so on.
Sorry about the essay, I flap on way too much but I always try to back up my thoughts rather than whipping them out and hoping for the best.
@@joeogle7729 Fair, but I'm way more upset about the Saturday qualifying and the Mugello incident.
@@PuncakeLena I think the worst was at Turkey when they let them go out with the crane still on track. Again I'm not saying Masi has been good. I just think people are blaming him because someone obviously has to be at fault and it can't just be a case of shite happens.
I rewatched qualifying and when the session started, it was definitely wetter than Q2 but I don't think it was as bad as it was when lando crashed. It very much snap of a finger stuff and the weather really went downhill during the outlaps. No one quite expected it to change that quickly and that's why so many were faffing with tyres in the garage. But i agree that it should have been red flagged way sooner than it was. Probably when it showed lando driving through that deluge down to Eau Rouge...
@@joeogle7729 Yeah I was just commenting on the part that shoved blame towards him for what happened on Sunday because I basically had no counter for the rest.
As for Turkey, I knew I forgot something...
@@PuncakeLena yeah Sunday was a cock up to say the least. But seeing as Masi used to be director of V8 supercars in Australia who have a rather 'relaxed' view compared to F1 as to how wet a track can be, I like to think there was a genuine attempt but I can't help but agree that those 2 laps were completely cynical like everyone else. But as I said, he's ultimately screwed by the aforementioned bag of bollocks that is the sporting regs.
I think the main takeaway from Sunday has to be how out of date and broken the sporting regs are. Everyone needs to sit down and rework them from start to finish. It's not just wet weather and red flag rules that are broken, it's the whole thing.
Also isn't it nice to have a proper debate on the internet...
The corner doesn't need to be changed, even if it’s more dangerous than a lot of corners. I’ve seen a couple of people wanting a chicane there instead but I don’t see the point in ruining corners when other solutions are around. The runoff and barrier angles just need to change.
Exactly my thoughts. We need the barriers to catch the cars rather than throw them back on the track
I don't know why angled barriers are still accepted. Different issues, but Grosjean's crash at Bahrein last year was also made worse than it should be because of them.
Yes that was the entire point of the video, thank you for reminding us
@@akkesm I made this comment about 2 minutes into watching the video. Don't blame me for Chainbear going for that title.
@@guilhermeodai When it comes to Grosjeans crash, I don't get why they don't just put a wall there and tyres. It is a relatively straight piece of track
Spa has always been my favorite track. Spa needs Eau Rouge. Keep the corner fix the runoff.
Fully agree! The corner is the best in the calendar, do not change it. Runoff areas, sure.
Remove the corner, save the trees! Eau Rouge has no right to still exist in the 2020's anymore! Bring back the 1994 version for good.
If it's nothing without the corner, then it doesn't deserve to have it.
The whole appeal of golf is the thrilling risk that someone might get hit by a ball and die. In bowling, we admire the courage of the athletes who might get their fingers stuck in the ball and get carried down the lane into that awful machine at the end. Billiards players can lose an eye to those pointy sticks they're always sharpening. Danger is an inescapable part of sport.
Part of what makes F1 great is the innovation it brings. This comes in all forms. Safety is and should be focus, consideration, and want for everyone onwers, teams, drivers, and fans alike.
Gravel Strips. That's all we need to help enforce track limits. Not a full trap that carries the risk of skipping cars into the wall, but a small strip that sits on the track limits, about half of a car's width. Enough of a space to slow the car and kick up dust, but not enough to spear it away dangerously.
A barrell rolling car is still safer than a secondary impact though.
Safety solutions shouldn't be considered "babies'" stuff. Those who have this kind of opinion wouldn't say stupid things like that if they had racing drivers in their families.
I almost shit my pants seeing Lando's crash. I just knew that he wouldn't finish Raidillon, and that half second delay 'til his McLaren appear on screen made me think: "fuck. It happened."
I wonder how stupid a person should be to consider someone else as just a "sacrifice meat who drive cars only to satisfy my adrenaline needs that i can't do by myself".
its not about sacrificing them, every corner should be as safe as possible, but do not take away the need of skill to handle those corners as that is what makes racing series intresting.
In other words improve the runoff zones to make failures unleathal but do not make it impossible to make failures in the first place.
@@Mucknuggle exactly. No one's saying it shouldn't be difficult, just that a single mistake shouldn't result in serious injury or death. A mistake should end your race/qualifying, but that should be it.
There's no skill required for Eau Rouge anymore for the most part (i.e. in the dry) - as CB noted, it's easily flat in a modern F1 car, as well as other formulae. It's low-challenge but high-risk, when we want it the other way around (such as at Pouhon, which is now considered *the* challenge of Spa in fair conditions)
@@byst33 exactly. Here in Brazil we had sad comments from a presenter at the TV sports show. At least, his face went Ferrari red as he tried to state that F1 has an inherent risk (as if nobody knew that) and implying that drivers should shut up and race. Death is unacceptable. Severed limbs are unacceptable.
Great video idea! Will you do a video on the 2 laps for points regulations that were used during the Belgian Grand Prix yesterday?
Patreon?
@ihms41 patreon
Yeah, it should change to at least 25% green flag racing for half points else the race is cancelled
@ihms41 I did not use Patreon. I found the video under the “Opinion” playlist.
@ihms41 Yes. It was set to private but it could be accessed if it was found in the playlist.
The tarmac on the runoff is lethal. In the 90s when there was gravel you didnt have cars bouncing back onto the racing line after Radillon. Zanardi, Zonta, Villeneuve, all stayed in the gravel despite the violence of the crashes.
Zanardi actually did bounce back onto the track after his crash there in 1993. He was lucky that no other cars were approaching his location.
I personally think there should be a special flag which sets a speed limit for every car on track whenever a car spins at raidillon to avoid accidents like hubert or in the W series. Its a blind corner and i still think that a lot of drivers still go to fast whenever there is a yellow flag or double yellow flay especially in a blind corner like raidillon.
I don't think that I've seen a GT3 destroyed as much as Jack Aitken's lambo from this year accident.
He's so lucky to be alive
wasn't the engine block launched over the barriers?
@@GloomGaiGar Yep, there were engine swap jokes
I get the crashes are a thrill to some, after watching so many die or being seriously injured, I enjoy the bit where they walk away from a trashed car and throw their gloves on the floor the most
the moment after you know the driver is safe, where you can call a crash "spectacular" feels awesome
@@yoanvicente9563 Why I love Nascar. 20 car pile up and half the cars are on fire? Eh, maybe some bruising, but drivers will be fine
I watched bahrain 2020 with a few friends who never really watched F1. When Grosjean crashed they all got excited because it was big. Im not blaming them at all, it was their first race and they didnt know the risks, but as someone who knew the worst case scenarios it made me sick in the moment because i knew they could have just cheered a mans death. The drivers walking away from the acident is definitely the best bit. Thankfully for me thye kept on watching F1 and now understand the risks, so when Lando crashed at Eau Rouge they didnt cheer at all, just looked to see if he was OK, as i think everybody did.
If the track layout was ever to be changed. The only changed I would willingly accept seeing is the restoration of the old route the track took from Eau Rouge, into the hairpin before coming back out onto the straight. Not sure if any of the drivers would want the track layout to be changed though. Eau Rouge into Radillion seems to be universally loved. However, we absolutely need to see some serious investment and an expanded runoff in the area.
I really don't know why people don't talk about that old route at all!
@@mildertduck I suppose most people just remember the rest of it and not the wee hairpin. Definitely something worth being remembered and talked about though!
You mean L'Ancienne douane? The corner used before 1939?
The problem with en extended runoff, is that the circuit will be even more likely to be flooded
People often aren't aware that the current layout of the section wasn't created until 1982, when it got straightened out. And it was probably to get more runoff area, I might add.
Spent my kid years going to Spa with my father, and iirc the biggest downside of the gravel in the left part of that curve was that when rain was pouring as it often do in Belgium, trenches would form, torrents of water would rush down ultimately dragging a lot of gravel along in Eau Rouge. All that would make a real mess in more than one occasion, not only forcing many yellow/red flags, but also some really lengthy clean up sessions where they had to recover all that gravel and put it back uphill.
Straightening the left wall sounds like a good option though.
As a former nascar fan (too many reasons to go in to), I absolutely understand the sentiment. Even if the only casualty is cars (and at Daytona, Indianapolis, Pocono, that's a good day), who wants to see cars in pieces? And when people are in them, all the worse! I love Pocono, it's unique, it's special, and it's dangerous. I am a huge Robert Wickens fan, and when he was injured there, it happened to be a day where I got to catch the race with my dad. I had been talking for months with him about this new hot shoe driver, and when they threw out the red flag, we were both pretty sure we watched that kid die. If you wanna see broken cars, find a demo derby or a trailer race, if you like racing, you need to be a proponent of safety. Never get off that soapbox Stuart!
Ryan Newman’s wreck messed me up for a bit.
Thanks for the soapbox piece about Twitter F1's obsession with danger. Articulated it much better than I could.
Very strong words about "acceptable risks and borderline death" and duality of fans at the end of video.
(and please take everything i said below with grain of salt, opinion approacing)
Recently, bunch of people started portraying drivers as gladiators YET AGAIN (as if Halo introduction happend in terms of negativity towards recent "GP" outcome) who supposedly live only to "deliver amusement because they're here for us: most importantly, they're people who shouldn't be afraid of death - of anything for that matter! If not, why are they even racing?"
We're talking about folks who do it for themselves because of passion for motorsport, not slaves who battle with their own lives for entitled public which dont know anything better than watching them going at it!
As much as we love spectacular racing we shouldn't thrive for crashes and drivers going over their limits and boundaries for "best crowds and fans at home" to watch.
Pure joy and fun comes from wheel-to-wheel action while displaying brilliance and mastery, mere inches between zero and hero - that's racing. And demolition derby with unnecessery risks which some "bunch of wankors" wants to witness has none of it.
Exactly!
Yep, Drive to Survive haven't helped this through their title along with portraying the drivers as risking their lives everytime they get in the car. Motorsport isn't about driving as close to danger as possible, it's about driver talent and team engineering
While I agree completely with your point, the general view on gladiators is flawed.
There were gladiator schools where slaves and volunteers were trained to perform as specific classes of gladiator. These classes were usually matched up against each other so that their strenghts and weaknessess would lead to interesting fights.
Certain gladiators were so succesful and popular there are findings of "merchandise" and "fanart" graffiti of them, and they would earn a crap load of money for their school or owner. These stars would sometimes be pitched against each other and their fights would be the highlight of the day. They would never risk them actually dying, so it was uncommon for them to fight to the death. If there was a fight to the death it was so uncommon that it was specifically advertised that way beforehand.
And even if they sustained a severe injury the doctors of the gladiator schools were one of the bests in the empire. there's findings of medical forceps which almost look modern in design, and there's even records of an operation that took out a small window in someones skull so they wouldn't die from pressure in the brain.
In short, professional gladiators did not risk death each time they set foot in the colliseum and should better be compared to WWE wrestlers with swords.
"OH MY GAWD IT'S CLAUDIUS WITH A STEEL CHAIR"
(also sorry for the wall of text)
I was flagging at Detroit. Stationed at 6A on Saturday for the races, I didn’t believe my eyes when Rosenqvist hit the wall. Then I saw part of the car climb the fence (the way the wall curves I couldn’t see the actual tire wall). This was my first major accident at any level in my 2.5 years of flagging. It shocked me and was a sudden reminder that this is a life or death sport sometimes. If I was in Europe, I would refuse to work that area. There are certain areas I do not like flagging at Mid Ohio and other tracks, whether it be for my safety or the drivers’. That area definitely needs changed, and also BRANDS HATCH NEEDS CATCH FENCING!
Last month a corner marshal was killed at turn 1 because a car climbed the railing and tumbled into the station. Nothing was changed, and sure enough last weekend a McLaren in the SRO series climbed the guardrail and went straight into the trees. Had then been a marshal post, there would have been another serious incident.
Damn...if I hadn't taken a job in Wisconsin, I might've been down there with you in that corner. I may see about working events at Road America next year cause it's something I've talked about doing but never really had the chance to.
@@jasonchilton5023 same. I’m Ohio based but I’m gonna try to travel once or twice a year
I never understood how Mid-Ohio could have any dangerous flagger spots. Especially with the amount of money and how damn persnickety they are about the track and they still have people leaning out around fences to flag on the outside of turns....They have nothing but room for proper stations as well as remote operated zones. But no, re decorate the VIP tower again. that's fine.
Gday mate ,Talking about fencing mate ! You`r most Famous race the Indy 500 ! the front Straight is 1 Mile long & has no Fencing in front of the Pits . just a 2 Foot concrete wall !
@@cosmictywlite I mean you’re not wrong. I guess the reason for that is it’s never been an issue (not that it never will be). Tbh, most tracks don’t have catch fencing on the pit lane wall here in the states. I’ve never thought of that before
The biggest issue, and not only with eau rouge, is the cars bouncing back to the track, and having a blind corner/rain is an even bigger issue since you could collect the crashed car
As JRR Tolkien put it, “Ask not the bears for advice, because they will tell you both 'yes' and 'no'.”
FIA: "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"
100% agree. Also, I would like to point out that none of the people saying "Bunch of babies, real drivers would've raced in those conditions" were, you know, THE ACTUAL DRIVERS. You know, the ones who had the first hand experience to say "WE CAN'T SEE SHIT"
The crest is going to cause even more issues in 2022 when downforce is largely an underbody thing. That slight lift will make you lose a ton of downforce suddenly.
that sounds kinda nice, drivers will probably like it too, for the corner to have a bit more challenge again.
@@Fowey7 Apparently you aren't familiar with why ground effect was banned in the first place.
@@Fowey7 actually it could give same effect like aquaplanning, when it is no challenge - car just loses all control. One of the primary issues that got ground effect banned in the first place.
@@coreyward I'm actually not, I haven't followed formula 1 for such a long time. but since the regulations are getting changed to make it a part of the sport again I assumed they've figured out how to make it safe. if theres some issue with it that both f1 and fia missed when making the regulations, I'd be glad to hear about it
@@Fowey7 With ground effect, lifting the car off the ground significantly reduces the downforce applied to it. Historically cars relied on it so significantly that hitting the inside corner of a rumble strip or sausage curve could be enough to send the car hurtling off the track due to a lack of grip. Since you need tires on the ground to slow down quickly, it led to a lot of really bad accidents. Next year's regs don't allow for _that_ much ground effect, but if it's enough for the Eau Rouge heart-in-mouth lift the car up it would be even more dangerous than this year. Cheers!
Driving at 300 km/h will always be dangerous, no matter how many safety features you add. There's absolutely no reason not to implement every single safety improvement possible. In relations to Eau Rouge, the only issue is in my opinion that the cars bounce back on the track. That has to be solved.
I absolutely agree I couldn’t of said it better myself, however the terrain makes it extremely difficult
@@Jeff_Bondd we can build islands in oceans, drain wetlands across a country, and turn mountains into quarries. I'm sure jim and bob can take a backhoe and flatten out a moderately sized run off area or sand pit
Sure it not an easy solution to expand the runoff. But preserving the classic track that made F1 is worth a lot of money in my opinion.
_the corner is fine no need to change, it'll ruin the entire track for good, but adding more runoff areas on that specific corner will make it safer_
One thing I've been thinking about is how about slowing the cars down? Every time it's the tracks that get all the shit whether it's about the quality of racing or safety. The cars are constantly getting faster and faster and then everybody just expects the tracks to change. One day we will "enjoy" the sight of endless runoff areas like in Paul Ricard, because the cars get faster and everybody accepts that.
Race tracks are seemingly always the ones that have a hard time. Ridiculous fees to hold races, people complaining about safety and racing. We have seen classic tracks get dropped from the calendar because the whole F1 circus is a fucking disaster. Hosting F1 is a financial nightmare for circuits and F1 just does what it wants, which means classic tracks get axed because they can't keep up. Does that sound right and fair? No! The tracks themselves are an insanely important part of the sport. Just as teams like Ferrari and McLaren hold a lot of value, so do tracks like Spa and Monza, both of which are struggling with finances or safety concerns right now. We need to balance things out with the sport.
Well said !! This comment needs more likes !
That's why we have rule changes whether technical or sporting. Problem is we can't keep changing the rules willy nilly.
2022 cars will likely be slower, and will hopefully be better at following too. However I can see why it's tough. There's instinctive appeal in continuous improvement. You see it in the never-ending horsepower increases on road cars too.
They should stop allowing other series to race there. Their cars are too fast and low on downforce and their drivers aren't good enough for this track
@Jan Brady Looks like there is a severe lack of "racers" these days that watch F1 - they're probably all watching the MotoGP!!
Fantastic video. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Having watched all forms of motorsports since the early 1970s (that I remember. Undoubtedly I watched it from birth because of Dad), I have seen far too many accidents which end with a fatality or "just" a life-changing injury. I don't want to see _anyone_ get as much as a scratch in the name of my entertainment. That doesn't entertain me at all, it just makes me cry.
Radillon's run-off area _must_ be changed. There's no case for an argument about it in my eyes.
Honestly, wouldn't be mad at all if they restored the pre-1983 layout, the one where it went a bit deeper into the left, and was definitely not flat-out. At least it would be easy to add as an alternative, since it's all tarmac anyway.
That's what I've been wanting. When they made changes to the track they made it track wider as well at added wide shallow curbs which effectively widened the track even further. The problem though is this severely shallowed the corners, making them faster. What they should have done was widen the track in a way that wouldn't alter the racing line, taking into account drivers would use every inch of the the curbs.
I think this in addition the the better runoffs would be the best solution, it would also restore the history of the corner and make the corner much more interesting and much more safe.
So many people leaving comments who clearly haven't watched the video lmao.
yeah im seeing alot of that
Spot on, as I always said, the issue is not the corner, it's that they are not putting proper safety like runoffs, gravel traps, etc on it and that the barriers are poorly designed.
I think that three corners motorsport cannot be changed as they stand above the rest. Two are not raced on F1, but I think changing the Carousel, Eau Rouge, and, my personal favorite, The Corkscrew would be beyond sacrilegious. I agree with you on increasing safety though, and am 100% behind altering areas around the track to make them as safe as possible.
I always thought I was weird for always hoping to see 20 finishers in a race. I think you've illuminated why I like to see all cars across the finish line.
Drivers will make mistakes, and end up leaving the track in a way that means they can't finish. It takes skill to drive an F1 car over dozens of laps, and a lapse in skill may mean you don't finish. That's fine - but none of that requires putting life and limb at risk.
Great video, it was nice to learn more about the Eau Rouge / Raidillon situation 🙂
I'm thinking maybe build an overhang over the right runoff area to extend the runoff. Sounds more practical than terraforming the entire land.
the problem is the left runoff area though. That part funnels cars back on track.
@@Hirosjimma 9:15
The problem is that you don't need to just extend the runoff, you also gotta extend the Marshall roads, spots for them to stand, the entire structure needs to be strong enough for a crane to be driven on, ontop of several tonnes of gravel.
tbh, I say change the corner if they must. Obviously I'd prefer if they kept it but we still have:
- Piscine
- The entirety of Monza
- Pouhon and Blanchimont
- Turn 8 (you know which one)
- 130R
- Baku Castle
- The run from Luffield to Stowe
- Waite (Australia T11 - T12)
- Senna esses
- COTA T1
There's plenty of legendary corners that require skill and bravery in F1.
If it costs too much to fix properly, which I don't think their gravel trap solution is doing, they would just remove it from the calendar and replace it with another bs super safety ring like Paul Ricard.
I'd rather have Spa with no eau rouge than no Spa.
The runoff area could be partially tarmac and partially gravel travel so that drivers have a little bit of breathing room. If they go to far, however, they won't run the risk of bouncing back on to the track due to the gravel.
Well said, that part about safety - it's beyond me how people find that acceptable. Death and injury should not be apart of the show to any right-minded human being.
The track has a FIA Grade 1 certificate tho
@@Karl_Nehammer its the layout of the eau rouge corners that dont have the proper runoff? Did you watch the video
@@dukcy7450 like i said, the track has a FIA Grade 1 certification so no changes are necessary.
You're completely right. I don't even understand why they still race in real cars and tracks. The risk and possibility of injury should be completely eliminated when possible. They should race on the simulator only. Why leave the house at all?
@@Federico1685 I'm pretty sure there's a whole load of options in between "race on a simulator" and "don't make any safety changes at all"
I think I speak for all new fans when I say that any safety improvements can be made ought to be made. Those of us watching in the last couple years have SEEN young men saved by recent safety improvements (namely, the halo, and those lives being of Charles Leclerc and Tadasuke Makino). I would, frankly, accept changes to the Eau Rouge complex if it meant I wouldn't have to watch another driver die doing what they love. Drivers' lives come before tradition and history without question in my mind. I'm glad that it doesn't need to be changed, that improved runoff areas can be achieved to ensure driver safety. But I lost a lot of respect for Brundle and Croft when they were talking about the inherent danger of the sport, and the almost flippant way Martin spoke about people dying through that section. I would have expected Martin to understand the gravity of the danger of the sport.
I'm a recent returnee to F1 (last watched seriously around 2005) and almost right out of the gate was already leery of the commentating pair. I understand they often have to speak off the cuff and in the case of a drawn out Spa had to fan out into the most tangential topics but it's those moments that amplify the chances for them digging into their deepest biases. As the primary commentators of F1, especially for those watching the English broadcasts, they have to realize that their words have considerable weight. Aside from the race events, they are often the first contact between the spectators and the sport.
With that said, even with all his shortcomings and idiosyncrasies, Croft is one of the better commentators in the world of sport broadcasting. Brundle is another matter entirely.
I can't add any more to what you or Chain Bear have articulated. No holes could be poked through. I'm just adding to the engagement that yes, there are more in us in the safety camp than there are waddling in the quagmire of survivorship bias and blind nostalgia. If I had a nickel for every re-quote of Senna, etc, etc...
You can add Grosjean to that list of people saved by the halo. Without the halo he certainly would have been decapitated going into that barrier at Bahrain last year...
Martin understands it just fine. Death is an inherent risk with motorsports, always has been. Racers acknowledge that, and then go race.
Well remove Monaco from the calendar and ban all road racing including the TT, in fact ban all motorbike racing and limit the cars to 50 mph, that should make it safe enough
"I would, frankly, accept changes to the Eau Rouge complex if it meant I wouldn't have to watch another driver die doing what they love."
Maybe they love the adrenaline that going through Eau Rouge/Radillion gives them. Slapping a chicane in the middle of Eau Rouge for "safety" isn't probably what the drivers would want nor what the fans should want.
Which brings me to my point: "any safety improvements can be made ought to be made" is the wrong way to look at it. Racing is inherently dangerous. There comes a point then when improvements for the sake of safety ruin the spectacle. Changing the track portion of Eau Rouge/Radillion would be an instance of that line being crossed. Change the run off all you want, but that series of turns are one of the most iconic because it is one of the most dangerous but most thrilling sequence of turns on any track.
As for Brundle and Croft, I actually gained respect for them after that part of the broadcast.
Change Eau Rouge and bring back Tamburello, that’s my philosophy.
And by Eau Rouge I mean the runoff and barriers, not so much the corner itself.
If Senna’s death was enough to change Tamburello, why is Hubert’s death less important? The loss of a life is the loss of a life regardless of how many championships you’ve won
Because Senna.
@@triptechable my favourite driver, love the dude, but that excuse doesn’t fly for me. I don’t disagree with them changing Tamburello, I’m just saying 2021 F1 cars would probably be more equipped to handle it now in its original form. If something’s a problem, fix it.
@@matticusrenwood I think the reason it was changed so quickly was because two drivers (Ratzenberger then Senna) were both killed at the same corner, as well as serious injuries both on the same weekend and leading up to it
@@triptechable Hate to say it but I think you're right. I remember a stretch of nine months starting in May 2000 where four drivers in NASCAR were killed in very similar accidents - two at the exact same track and corner, that being T3 at New Hampshire - and they didn't do anything for the young 19-year-old upstart (Adam Petty).
They didn't do anything for the midfielder who had just switched teams (Kenny Irwin).
They didn't do anything for the journeyman in the lower division (Tony Roper).
It wasn't until they, like in F1, lost an iconic legend in Dale Earnhardt that NASCAR woke up and started to act. I really think that the Eau Rouge/Raidillon section does need to be looked at after this string of accidents, though it will need to be done right. If they can bring the barrier on the left out effectively, that would be a good start.
I've noticed that people who use the "snowflake" insult are ironically some of the most emotions over facts people in existence. The seething need to throw around insults at people who disagree with you is a sign of emotional immaturity.
Here's an indisputable fact: focusing on safety does not hinder entertainment to any meaningful extent. I still remember some of the braindead takes from when the Halo was first introduced. Now everyone loves it because people are too short-sighted when it comes to change. This applies to more than just motorsport but life in general.
That is where you are wrong. Not ALL changes due to "safety concerns" hinder entertainment, but some do, and some do it to a huge extent. Halo was the first kind.
Changing Imola, Hockemheim and letting Tilke go wild on butchering iconic and historic tracks are the second kind. Changing the layout of Eau Rouge/Raidillion/Kemmel is the last kind.
I still hate the hallo, but fuck me if I'm going to complain about something that saves lives.
Wonderful analysis. The nature and science of the corner suggests that even with the wall on the left straightened out, the cars will drift back on to the track, depending on at which part they actually lose traction in the first place. But the percentage suggests they will be in a rightward arc when traction is lost, sending them on a trackwards trajectory.
Tyre wall throws cars back onto the racing line, which isn’t ideal
Your absolitely right but a guard rail isnt much better if you just come to an instant stop from 280 kph
So... Tecpro?
@@ivan_pozdeev_u good idea but with graveltrapps infront of them
Like you mentioned, I think the worst part of eau rouge is the incline, when you reach the peak it unloads the car and you lose all downforce and control. If it wasn't so steep, cars would hopefully stay on the ground.
Yep, that's why we generally see car control losses much less in similar flat out highspeed corners like 130R. I don't even remember any crash at 130R in recent f1 times.
I've never seen a car fly off raidillon
I can't agree. Thats the corners character.
There must be another solution!
(Change the runoffs)
@@HeavyMetalGamingHD they changed the profile of 130R. It’s basically a flat out left hand kink now.
"stay on the ground"
When did the contrary ever happened?
Save the muddy landscape vs save the corner vs saving lives
Just do it, fix the damn landscape!
Gravel Traps always put you in danger of flipping, especially when you enter them sideways.
Just widening the tarmac run-off area is just a very slight penalty.
Maybe that abrasive run-off tarmac in combination with a widened run-off area like the french GP has could be a solution that penalises enough to prevent excessive corner-cutting but not puts the driver in danger of flipping and potentially flying over safety barriers like other drivers in other open-wheel series did (okay, e.g. Sophia Flörsch didnt flip while being in a gravel trap in F3 but you get the point that flipping creates unpredictable crash situations)?
To qoute Chip Ganassi about Dan Weldon, “we all know the lines, he knew the risk or he was doing what he wanted to do. It doesn’t make the blow (Weldon’s death) any softer”.
Maybe weirdly, I'd say maybe people are even more attached to the names of the corners themselves, Eau Rouge and Raidillon, then about what those corners are. They are probably the most iconic names of F1's corner, ever. They are, in a certain way, like a sweet comfy blanket for F1 fans. That in mind, as needed those changes are required, we must deal with any changes very carefully.
Excellent analysis on the topic, M. Chain Bear!
They are very catchy names. The historic case of Silverstone certainly backs up your hypothesis.
So nice to have someone of real intelligence creating content.
I'm so frustrated seeing F1 fans talking about safety like it's a joke. This weekend in Spa was a good example, there's been countless people saying that they should've just raced anyway, despite the fact that the drivers couldn't see anything. And still people are bemoaning the halo even after Grosjean's accident in Bahrain where he 100% would've died without it. To be entirely honest, I think F1 fans are some of if not the worst sports fans on the damn planet, and that's not even touching on the overt racism exhibited by many of them.
I was with you until you said the halo saved Grosjean and complained about "overt racism" in F1. Evidence suggests that the halo could have been the reason he was stuck in his car as long as he was rather than being able to just climb out, so it's certainly not the definitive reason he was fine. That said, the halo is fantastic and needs to be there, let's just not credit it where it doesn't necessarily deserve it.
I'm not going to do anything other than laugh at the " ra-ra-racism!" part of your post tho lmfao, you people see that shit everywhere nowadays when there's hardly any anywhere outside of shit holes like Reddit!
So you think he could've taken the guardrail to his helmet at that speed and survived it? Because I don't think that would've happened. And I'm not going to respond to your dismissal of my comment on racism in the fan community because if you don't see it that probably means that you've willfully blinded yourself to it. I've seen so many terrible comments about Lewis Hamilton directly about the fact that he's black. I'm not even really fan of him myself but when it turns into being about race (which it often does) that's just unacceptable.
Racing, particularly stock car racing, was one of my first interests in life. There was a span of about 16 months where i saw 3 people die in real time and one was off camera but was a known driver as well.....that's just Nascar. I saw a guy in person wreck head first and later pass away. All as a 9-10 year old little kid....so for about 19 years i never watched a race. I began watching again last year and remember why i fell in love with this stuff. The safety nowadays is incredible, i am loving this stuff now
I remember, only too well, the years when fatalities were the norm, and when it was a rare season when no F1 driver died. I've got no desire to see that happen again.
those days are over tho. its safe enough
@@Lplover007 1 death is too many if it's in our power to prevent it.
I dont understand people watching races for crashes and feeling happy when drivers take up enormesly high amount of risk. I myself want to see them fight against each other on the track and drive as fast as physically possible and get out 100% safe and well even after crashing. No idiotic risks should be taken. I think runn off areas would be the best solution for spa.
my problem with changing the layout of the section is not "that its a classic" but that, its the single most iconic corner in racing, period. the karousel is the only even remotely close corner in terms of iconic-ness and fame. its too important of a corner
You just described what a "classic" is.
@@yrosan i mean that its a bigger deal than just "a classic corner".
Good video! Went into this expecting something else, but you addressed a lot of the issues from this weekend with the right perspective and mentality.
One thing I mentioned… I think a bridge across the track as you enter Eau Rouge that has marshal signaling and lights on it would be a great improvement. I know they have their steering wheel lights but their eyes at that point are staring up the hill at the point they predict is the Radiallon apex. More signaling could definitely help in split second instances where we see the dreaded second impacts. Take the W race for example. If there had been the yellow/red striped flag colors coming from the bridge area, the first driver may have been alerted rain had significantly increased since the last time through and maybe everyone just eases off that little bit.
Honestly, I think the drivers that are suggesting to bring the gravel traps back are 100% right. Exactly like was stated in the video drivers will just use the run off areas as extra race track (I actually think the reason why they were removed was because the FIA demanded it). Since quite a few years they have a vendetta against gravel traps and they have an obsession with run off areas. Look at Paul Ricard for instance.
That said, extra run off at the left hander is a good thing. Preventing the catapulting back onto the track is going to improve safety immensely. Combined with a gravel trap, These would all be good changes.
However, I also think it's easy to blame the circuit, while there are also other factors in play. Like I said before the drivers are often also taking more risks because they have extra run off areas (exactly the point some of the drivers made when they talked about adding gravel traps back). But also in the specific case of F1... maybe try to build a car that actually is able to drive in wet weather conditions... Recently I read something about one of the F1 team bosses or engineers saying that they have full wet weather tires, but that with the way the cars are built there's a very thin line in being able to use them and not race at all. The cars just suffer immediately as soon as there's some significant rain. So it's either a race where they can use intermediate tires or they don't drive at all. The full wet tires are effectively useless...
Also if a driver says over the radio that they shouldn't be continuing with the qualifying then the race director should take that seriously. If they don't and an accident happens, it's always easy to blame the track and not yourself. But then again that's something the FIA (particularly in F1) is really good at...
This is the same thing nascar did years ago when they made restrictor plate races at the high speed tracks. It bunched the cars up and made everyone wait for the big one. Hell nascar marketed that as a reason to watch. The big one would be an accident that involved 10 cars or more every race. And nascar didn’t care just kept on because people loved to see it. I’ll never understand why people want to see cars crash. I want to see them race and if drivers don’t have to wonder if this is the corner that is going to kill them they are much more likely to drive better and get better racing. If the penalty for messing up a corner is a broke car and not lose of life drivers will take more risks.
ironically the crashes are one of the few things that conveigh the sense of speed... because they slide a longggggg way
Funny how half the comments are people complaining without even watching 30 seconds of the video...
Lando's crash scared me; he's such a fun character and an amazing driver and the way he rebounded across the track gave me flashbacks. I whole-heartedly agree with everything said in this video.
I just had a bad feeling for the entire weekend. Every time they pushed through there I always hold my breath. There are way too many incident that weekend.
So the only reason you were scared was because he's funny. What if it was mazepin
Couldn't agree more. As Martin Brundle said in the '1' film: We enjoy seeing a crash, but we don't want to see someone hurt.
Motorsport will always be dangerous, yes. But if the outcome of these crashes can be altered to avoid death, then that is what needs to be done.
I'll never forget the horrid feeling I had when watching the Bahrain GP last year, wondering why at first they were deliberately not showing anything of Grosjean's crash as they were waiting for confirmation he was alive. The images they released afterwards (And yes, probably replayed a bit too much in the immediate aftermath), but the feeling that someone we watch each race weekend and is one of the 20 main people we put our focus on might have died in front of our eyes was almost too much to bear.
I'm thankful that the only live races I've watched (Been an F1 fan since 2002) where there's been a driver fatality is Japan 2014 (Never seen the crash, from descriptions of it I don't think it's one I want to see either), and Le Mans a few years before that when the barrier was placed right in front of a tree so didn't deform in the way we've become used to. I hope I can keep it that way and not have to see a driver lose their life in the name of 'entertainment'.
Easy solution: change the sweeping right at Eau Rouge (9:45) into a kink. It's not a chicane, but it scrubs 20-30km off their speed. It only requires moving the wall back and a small amount of repaving. Just as important, get rid of the tire barriers on the right. Replace them with tecpro or SAFER to prevent cars from bouncing off.
Safety should always be key, I still get shivers when I remember the Grosian crash, first absolute massive one I saw life.
Who's Grosian?
@@KsCHL1 His imaginary sex partner.
Same, it is actually my earliest clear memory of F1 (started watching the entire time since France this year)
Awesome video, as always... The amount of effort you put into every little detail of your videos is outstanding. The writing, editing, the animations. This new outro is what made me comment here, but I can't forget all the other skills.
Fantastic analysis. One thing though: I think there's no need to do the "no true scottsman" arguement about people who are excited by crashes. I think the risk of a crash vs reward of a pass is the most exciting part of racing, but I never want to see crashes, so I agree that morbid thrills have no place in motor racing, or any sport if I'm honest. I think these fans start by being childishly excited by death and destruction grow into fans who appreciate close racing, then the driver drama and the technical battlefield that is F1. That's pretty much been my journey since I started watching F1 with my dad as a young boy - re-enacting crashes with hotwheels then, now reading technical directives from the FIA and commenting on the unwritten parts. It's something that fans grow into, so I don't think they need to be excluded from the love of the sport, but instead shown all the other enjoyable aspects of F1 instead.
I am an old guy. Been watching F1 and IndyCars (CART/CHAMP/whatever) since the 80s. Honestly, back then we only had 1 television and when we got home Sunday morning, racing was the only thing my dad watched that day. I've seen too many drivers get killed or seriously injured. I am grateful that it is rare these days and hope it keeps improving. We all want to see drivers giving their all and taking some risks, but I don't want to see a huge crash ending in death or career ending injury.
Meanwhile, Russell Crowe be all "are you not entertained?"
I’m glad you touched on the criticisms of F1 being “too soft” now, watching the Grand Prix this weekend and hearing Martin Brundel say he’s gone out in worse and expects the race to go forth was horrible and I just wanted to shake him. Especially considering he had a few close calls in F2 and raced alongside great drivers who sadly lost their lives too soon behind the wheel of F1 cars. The risks were too great and I’m glad the race didn’t happen.
Especially since yes, Brundle went out in worse on two occasions off the top of my head. Australia 89 he got rear-ended by Senna because he literally couldn’t see Brundle’s red light. And Japan 94, when he went off at the same place as another car (same corner & situation as Jules in 2014!) and broke a marshal’s legs, very nearly went under the crane himself. If anyone should be aware of the dangers of these conditions it’s him.
@@kevsxe exactly well said, I was told about the Senna incident a couple days ago after talking to someone else about it. I expect more from the punditry on Sky Sports, I do value his expertise on occasion but offhand comments like that ruin the experience for me.
Heard Vettel talk about making it more of a corner, as in tightening both corners.
Might be a solution.
It would arguably add to the challenge of driving an F1 car through that section, now that it’s basically taken flat out these days. Safer, and probably a better separator of driver talent, if done right. Win, win.
@@BungleBare yes, I think that's the point.
And if combined with bigger gravel runoffs, I think it could be key
I'd like to point out that the only reason Grosjean is alive and still racing at the moment after his horrifying crash in Bahrain is that after everything went wrong, everything else went right: Fire Retardant suit and gloves protected him from the flames for long enough for him to get out; medical personnel were there almost immediately to assist; and probably most importantly, the cockpit of the car was designed to take the impact and protected Grosjean from the worst of the impact. If people die, they can't keep on racing. If people end up paralysed, they can't keep on racing. Safety should always be the number one concern. Not everything can be made safe, but a lot of the danger can be mitigated without compromising the track layout or the racing.
Great vid. It is a wonderful corner sequence but it's absolutely worth opening up the run off of the left hand side to increase the safety. Don't mind the idea of gravel there as well. then it can still be taken at full speed and reward good driving, but punish mistakes in a safe way.
Love your vids-keep up the good work!
Increasing the runoff areas seems sensible to me. The track is not altered but impacts with the wall are not funneled back into the line of fire.
The whole time I was thinking why not widen the run-offs. Since it's a high risk area, you can make them gigantic like at the French gp
There isn't room for that.
I'm so glad you addressed the dumb macho "rAciNg iS dAngErOus" discourse, it bothers me so much
You really nailed it. I am undecided on what has to change exactly at Eau Rogue-Radillion to make it more safer except a wider runoff area on the left side of Radillion. That one is undenieable necessary.
You either do that or you have to get rid of the classic Eau Rogue-Radillion sequence.
Every time a car drives through Eau Rouge, I still hold my breath after what happened in 2019. When Norris' car hit the barrier in the quali the only thing I was thinking was 'don't let there be another car, don't let there be another car'. The biggest 'problem' with Eau Rouge is mostly what almost everyone agrees on: it bounces the cars back on the track. So that's the part that needs to be changed, but they need to change that on both sides of the track. Also something that discourages the drivers to use these runoff areas would be amazing. If you look at the accident in the W-series, it's crazy that the last car just came plowing in there. If it was because of the weather or because they just took the runoff area it doesn't matter, but that car should have been slowed down. Luckily nothing bad happened out of it, but if it was slowed down, it might have changed a lot of the eventual outcome it might even not have made it a major accident at all. Now I am totally not well versed into any technology or thingy that could do that so that's to the bigger brain-people, but as long as runoff areas don't slow cars down, drivers will see them as an escape and it's waiting for the next bad accident to happen. Not only do we need to change the corner, but also the drivers' mentality
Sounds like that track has a similar issue to what Walkens Glen had a few years ago, where there was a section of the barrier that kept ejecting cars back onto the track... and the "Change the barrier profile, not the track profile" was indeed the answer. So at least there is also precident for that solution.