Future Grands Prix?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This is really worth a read.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/6483/how-could-f1-risk-losing-monza-for-baku/?_ga=1.85549918.638238356.1427643335

Can you give us non-subscribers a short expose of the piece, please?

[chillibowl]

in summary:



"I want to suck your money!"

[Mekola]

In other words, F1 isn't worth the poverty of millions of people in countries where the distribution of wealth is not equal.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Not that I don't want safety, however I feel they have gone too far in some areas, specifically tarmac run off.

Get in an F1 and have an off on gravel or wet grass then tell us the safety standards are too strict. Nothing is more important than the safety of the driver and it is one area that has seen a vast improvement and rightly so.

[ECW Dan Selby]

/\ Going back to this old argument, I think people more want to see mistakes punished rather than drivers hurt.

It's a somewhat fine line, but a very small strip of gravel tends to throw guys off a bit.

Selby

[Casper]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

/\ Going back to this old argument, I think people more want to see mistakes punished rather than drivers hurt.

It's a somewhat fine line, but a very small strip of gravel tends to throw guys off a bit.

Selby

There is no fine line, driver safety is paramount and for anyone to say it isn't is stupid. I wonder if those that think it isn't have ever been on a track and had a serious off. Gravel traps and flat bottom cars is like a flat bottom boat on water, it just keeps on going. I have no tolerance for anyone who questions safety on a track that gives the driver a better chance especially if that driver is steering an open wheeler. You may guess I feel strongly about this and you would be right because I have been there and done it and watched my son do it.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

If driver safety is paramount, gravel traps. They slow the car down, so any impact is lessened. Tarmac run-off doesn't, and neither does grass! They're a win-win, although having them inches from the circuit would lead to more incidents than most, and more (dull) safety car periods.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Can you give us non-subscribers a short expose of the piece, please?

I'll do my best but it's quite a long article; give me a day or two.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull

If driver safety is paramount, gravel traps. They slow the car down, so any impact is lessened. Tarmac run-off doesn't, and neither does grass! They're a win-win, although having them inches from the circuit would lead to more incidents than most, and more (dull) safety car periods.

You have never been in a FLAT BOTTOM race car have you? Tarmac run off allows the driver to use his brakes and steer the car, gravel traps and grass do not. When a flat bottomed car gets into gravel it floats on the gravel and continues on due to its inertia and mass and the inability of the driver to control it. Why do you think you see less cars hitting things these days? Tarmac also has the advantage of keeping the car in the race and lowering costs because the car is not damaged.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by Casper

You have never been in a FLAT BOTTOM race car have you? Tarmac run off allows the driver to use his brakes and steer the car, gravel traps and grass do not. When a flat bottomed car gets into gravel it floats on the gravel and continues on due to its inertia and mass and the inability of the driver to control it. Why do you think you see less cars hitting things these days? Tarmac also has the advantage of keeping the car in the race and lowering costs because the car is not damaged.

That's the qualm. The car stays in the race. His point is a driver can make a fairly major error and still contend the Grand Prix. Take Hamilton's DRS mistake at Suzuka last year, where he overshot T1. He still won the race.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

That's the qualm. The car stays in the race. His point is a driver can make a fairly major error and still contend the Grand Prix. Take Hamilton's DRS mistake at Suzuka last year, where he overshot T1. He still won the race.

All four off gets you a drive through?
Might tend to satisfy both requirements.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

All four off gets you a drive through?
Might tend to satisfy both requirements.

Then you get the controversial calls, miscalls, missed calls, etc. Considering last year again, Singapore's going to need to repave the pit lane yearly.

[chillibowl]

in fairness we are going to get missed and controversial calls regardless of the track layout/safety features.

but i do agree that some of the paved run offs can produce a greater level of grip (as seen by Kimi several years ago in the run up to Eau Rouge) so there are unfair advantages to going off track and when it happens in the heat of a battle its very hard to apportion blame.

that said i dont think the penalty for going off the track should be getting beached in gravel and having your race ended. IMO that is a very disproportional penalty for missing a corner.

it is akin to ejecting a player for being offside.

[Mike Harte]

What is wrong with drivers respecting track limits? The tarmacadamed track was created at great expense for the sole purpose of having the cars and bikes driving on it/them. Comments have flowed on this and other threads about, especially, F1 drivers showing their abilities in controlling their steeds, and surely the primary object in that would be for them to keep all 4 wheels on the track.

That means that they shouldn't use the painted curbs, the Astroturf, concrete or anything else that is beyond the white lines that should border each and every circuit. Drivers in the past always respected track limits; why can't those supposedly in charge of motor sport not enforce this most basic rule? I mean, you can't legally drive with two wheels on a pavement on public roads, so why should you be allowed to do something similar in motor racing?

[chillibowl]

Did they though in the past?

Certainly the cars were far more durable in that they could get themselves out of traps with more ease but given the length of races in terms of time and track length I'm curious to know if drivers actually did observe the track limits in a manner any different than today's drivers.

I suppose they would have had too as going off track was far more dangerous so of course risking ones health or life from a missed corner so that's far more disportional then getting stuck.

[NaBUru38]

As far as I remember, the last international sports boycott was for South African apartheid.

Since then, the most questionable countries invest tons of money in sport, so nobody dares to reject them.

Bernie is just killing F1. Leaving the countries with most fans to visit the countries with most money is a great business model in the short term. But in the long term, fans will leave and sponsors with them.

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

According to this report of a report in the Times ( I couldn't be *rsed to read that article) http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fo...olicy/?v=2&s=1 FOM will do due diligence on prospective holders of a licence to run a Grand Prix to ensure they comply with generally accepted Human Rights policies in the future.

Just as well that the ink is dry on the contracts with Bahrain, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, China and Azerbaijan. One has to wonder whether a contract is signed with Thailand, as their human rights policies are not really that wonderful either!

Read the fine print:

The Formula One Group confirmed this week that the sport is now "committed to respecting internationally recognised human rights in its operations globally".

F1 will respect human rights, not the host countries.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Read the fine print:

F1 will respect human rights, not the host countries.

If you take that statement literally, and one has to assume that the readers were intended to, then it means that the FIA and FOM will repect the human rights of all members of the public, and will therefore not organise races or allow races to take place in those countries where human rights abuses are carried out.

However, the extremely sad reality is that money talks volumes and, as far as F1 is concerned, it drowns out the voices of those whose human rights are abused. Like most of Mr Ecclestone's pronouncements, this was probably just made to divert attention from something else.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

If you take that statement literally, and one has to assume that the readers were intended to, then it means that the FIA and FOM will repect the human rights of all members of the public, and will therefore not organise races or allow races to take place in those countries where human rights abuses are carried out.

However, the extremely sad reality is that money talks volumes and, as far as F1 is concerned, it drowns out the voices of those whose human rights are abused. Like most of Mr Ecclestone's pronouncements, this was probably just made to divert attention from something else.

I call it lip service.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

If you take that statement literally, and one has to assume that the readers were intended to, then it means that the FIA and FOM will repect the human rights of all members of the public, and will therefore not organise races or allow races to take place in those countries where human rights abuses are carried out.

However, the extremely sad reality is that money talks volumes and, as far as F1 is concerned, it drowns out the voices of those whose human rights are abused. Like most of Mr Ecclestone's pronouncements, this was probably just made to divert attention from something else.

If you drill down into it, how many races exactly are run in countries with squeaky clean human rights records? Not many I would submit!

How many years are you going to stipulate since the last human rights abuse by the host nation?

Which human rights are we talking about, privacy, habeus corpus, invading other nations on flimsy excuses, starving populations with sanctions?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Casper

You have never been in a FLAT BOTTOM race car have you? Tarmac run off allows the driver to use his brakes and steer the car, gravel traps and grass do not. When a flat bottomed car gets into gravel it floats on the gravel and continues on due to its inertia and mass and the inability of the driver to control it. Why do you think you see less cars hitting things these days? Tarmac also has the advantage of keeping the car in the race and lowering costs because the car is not damaged.

Its funny how as soon as someone questions safety they instantly become the most unpopular person in the room. Even drivers such as Mark Webber and Tom Kristensen have previously stated that things have "gone too far" on occasion when it comes to altering tracks in the name of "safety".

And no I haven't ever personally been in a flat bottomed car, but I have been on all 3 sides of the crash barriers, driver / photographer / spectator.

When you look at our European tracks that are being destroyed by these rules then take a look across the pond at the fearsome US road tracks that are largely totally unchanged with plenty of gravel and grass, Mid Ohio, Road America, Watkins Glen, Road Atlanta. Why is it they somehow still consider these tracks to be "safe enough", yet the European tracks are being pulled apart?

The FIA also is guilty of breathtaking levels of double standards. Monaco; instant safety pass, despite having a tunnel section of 180mph with no run off and a 150mph chicane again with no run off. The same hypocrisy can be applied at some of the recent street courses. Singapore has areas of zero run off, yet somehow passes a safety inspection. Granted its not a particularly high speed course, but there are several sweepers and medium speed bends which if they were on a road course, wouldn't get a pass without 500 metres of tarmac run-off.

Safety is only king when it suits them.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Its funny how as soon as someone questions safety they instantly become the most unpopular person in the room. Even drivers such as Mark Webber and Tom Kristensen have previously stated that things have "gone too far" on occasion when it comes to altering tracks in the name of "safety".

And no I haven't ever personally been in a flat bottomed car, but I have been on all 3 sides of the crash barriers, driver / photographer / spectator.

When you look at our European tracks that are being destroyed by these rules then take a look across the pond at the fearsome US road tracks that are largely totally unchanged with plenty of gravel and grass, Mid Ohio, Road America, Watkins Glen, Road Atlanta. Why is it they somehow still consider these tracks to be "safe enough", yet the European tracks are being pulled apart?

The FIA also is guilty of breathtaking levels of double standards. Monaco; instant safety pass, despite having a tunnel section of 180mph with no run off and a 150mph chicane again with no run off. The same hypocrisy can be applied at some of the recent street courses. Singapore has areas of zero run off, yet somehow passes a safety inspection. Granted its not a particularly high speed course, but there are several sweepers and medium speed bends which if they were on a road course, wouldn't get a pass without 500 metres of tarmac run-off.

Safety is only king when it suits them.

Totally agree. The Parabolica is the perfect example. It's been made into just another corner. Soon there'll be no challenge of racing in Europe, and it'll be no safer than in the USA, for example. There's safety and then there's this. Is it really safety? Really?

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

The FIA also is guilty of breathtaking levels of double standards. Monaco; instant safety pass, despite having a tunnel section of 180mph with no run off and a 150mph chicane again with no run off. The same hypocrisy can be applied at some of the recent street courses. Singapore has areas of zero run off, yet somehow passes a safety inspection. Granted its not a particularly high speed course, but there are several sweepers and medium speed bends which if they were on a road course, wouldn't get a pass without 500 metres of tarmac run-off.

Safety is only king when it suits them.

That's a very fair point.

When it comes to the US tracks, though, I do look at them sometimes and think 'christ, they do look a little dangerous'.

Selby

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Greem

Don't forget that the WSBK/MotoGP folks are also usually involved in significant new track designs because the idea of the circuits is to pull in both F1 and at least one blue riband bike event.

Riders like lots of tarmac; the bike doesn't dig in and flip (unlike with gravel) and they have a far better chance of recovering a mistake than with grass.

You can't lay modern safety features all at the door of F1, you know!

Bloody well right...

[ECW Dan Selby]

Hang on, I thought the bikers liked the gravel...? And the F1 liked the tarmac? I thought that was one of the balances they had issues with making the new Silverstone section.

Selby

[Greem]

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

Hang on, I thought the bikers liked the gravel...? And the F1 liked the tarmac? I thought that was one of the balances they had issues with making the new Silverstone section.

Percentages.

If a bike runs wide (just like a car) on tarmac, the rider can throttle up if they can keep it upright and escape. In gravel they come to a rapid and grinding halt, if they don't flip. On grass, it's anybody's guess.

On tarmac, if they drop the bike then they continue to Brundle's "scene of the accident" very quickly; on gravel, they tend to stop before they get there - but have already come off the bike. On grass, it's anybody's guess.

The sliding-towards-the-wall aspect is one of the principal reasons I don't marshal bikes. *shudder*