What martin and max said is spot on, corners like 130R and many at Jeddah to name a few are just a horrendous/fatal accident away from being deemed too dangerous for the sport. Safety has come such a long way in the last few decades where drivers would be lucky to survive a single season in the sport back in the 60s. Awful that these kind of accidents can still happen but it can be the nature of this sport
The difference between the eau rouge radillon complex and 130R is that there is gravel, grass and plenty of tarmac on the outside, and cars are nowhere near as likely to rebound back on track.
As soon as I see the Jeddah track I said it was too dangerous. Way too hide speed with barriers that close. That will be the next track where a fatally unfortunately happens
I'm surprised the FIA didn't have a temper tantrum at Martin for being a part of this or letting it be released, he has such a solid point in this video.
Can anyone explain me what is the point he made? I think I clearly understood his explanation on the nature of the corner and the run off area but he didn't propose any solution or did he? I cannot comprehend that bit
@@twain1669in a nutshell his point is 'yes it's dangerous, but f1 is inherently dangerous and that's a big part of the thrill of both watching and taking part, therefore we need to accept the risks involved'.
I had the honor and pleasure of working with Anthoine in 2016 and having a personal friendship with him. Losing him was incredibly tough! However having raced Spa myself i completely agree with Martin, corners like this one is what makes racing great. Sadly Spa took another life a few months ago during the VW funcup but the risk is a part of the sport and all drivers know and accept that.
@@steviegbcool there’s an inherent risk to driving anything at 300kmh, that’s how physics works. The very least the FIA can do is try to make it as safe as possible. Unless you’re just a sadist and get off on seeing people die
Martin is absolutely right, you need these types of corners in F1, it’s what shows how good these machines are when at their limit There will always be an inherit danger when driving fast, that’s something we’ll never escape from Be it more safety features, something will always find a way to show the element of danger (I’d argue the heavier cars don’t help with the force of impact, but I digress)
If they could fix the problem of cars bouncing back on track then it wouldn’t be as dangerous and not dangerous to the once who don’t crash. Still I think he is right
@@thurbine2411 in theory this sounds great but it may also be too dangerous for the car that crashes to run off track at 300kph then hit a barrier that just stops them
@@seanwalsh5989 yes it shouldn’t just stop it but one would think it should be able to be designed to deform to lessen the impact without bouncing the car back.
Oh you are absolutely right that heavy cars are generally worse (more energy that needs to slow down safely.) The point about the weight of cars in the videos was mainly the more safety features added, the halo, stronger and more crash structures in the chassis do add weight to the car. Now that isn't to say we shouldn't make the cars safer obviously. But it means things like crash barriers have to be revamped and become stronger to handle the heavier cars at these higher speeds. Basically it's a trickle down effect. Eventually we can hope that material science will continue to advance so the car can get lighter.
I have raced at Spa. Eau Rouge and Raidillon are bloody alarming when you go through them the first time, you have to aim the car for where you think the corner exit is before you can see over the hill. It is also one of the best corners for a driver on what is definitely the best circuit I have raced on. As cars can be on the circuit after crashing they could improve the warning to the drivers approaching, a gantry with lights for instance but ultimately the hills and drops of this circuit are the character which as a driver I wouldn't want to lose.
Yes but even with that, if the cars are not separated enough, an alert system doesn't help. And technically they already have it with race control to the teams. These drivers have such great reaction times that they are likely to avoid and accident before the system can be triggered
They could introduce something similar to what the nurburgring is developing? Their smart camera system. Could potentially offer drivers a faster alert to an incident ahead. I'm not sure if that would be effective if all the cars are bunched up though
Spot on, there's a lot of fast corners that can lead to tragic accidents (the entire Jeddah circuit for example, the last sector in Baku, 130R at Suzuka, Copse at Silverstone, Blanchimont is still tricky). When Lando crashed in quali 2 years ago, people were saying that the FIA were wrong by letting them go on the track but the same people would've complain if there was no racing that day. Lando could've took the corner slower than he did for his first timed lap and he would not have crashed but he is a racing driver. If they remove Spa from the calendar, you can remove a lot of other circuits as well.
Removing SPA, Monza, Monaco or Silverstone would mean the ultimate loss of heritage and identity for formula 1. If they decide to kill these circuits from the calendar, they might just fake the rest of the season in a TV Studio to deliver another DTS Series, instead of polluting the environment for unnecessary races at even more unnecessary tracks.
I think the issue with Spa is the lack of visibility due to the variation in height between Eau Rouge and Raidillon, making the exit of Raidillon blind. Coupled with the lack of runoffs that bounces cars back onto the track, you have severe crashes that multiply themselves.
I think an easy way to improve its safety is to further shape and extend the catch barriers (if possible) to ensure cars don't ping off back onto the track, which isn't a common issue but it does happen. Dilano's crash has started up this conversation again but it's important to point out it didn't reeaaally happen because of Eau Rouge, the heavy rain and near zero visibility was entirely to blame, with loss of grip and no vision t-boning can happen on any straight and any corner of any track in the world.
But spa seems to have a problem with it, cause it happens at spa more than most. The easiest solution is extend the barrier at the top back and add a gravel trap so cars aren't redirected onto the track and they get slowed down so they don't go as far.
You cannot do that because of the physical nature of Eau Rouge. You can have tracks that are totally flat and have acres of runoff...track like that are totally boring. Still get t-boned on a flat track with 10 miles of run off though.
Can't change the typology of the land. Here my solution. I think it's genius and would work flawlessly. One of brundle's points is to slow the cars down. This would help, but not in wet weather. My solution helps with both. Repave with zoab It's porous, drains water away much faster. It's used on Netherlands motorways. It's less grippy, so drivers would have to lift off in order to make the corner, and it eliminates spray at the same time. The corner will still be dangerous but at least a car stopped on track would be visible.
@@Brendan77able how? Less grip? I'm sure drivers who's job it is to learn the levels of grip will manage. It's not that much of a difference. Not like Netherlands motorways feel like you're driving on glass lol. And again, there wouldn't be any standing water on the actual surface. Would be far less dangerous than traditional tarmac. Especially new stuff as water sits on top of newly paved tarmac much more so than older tarmac
In the early days of F1 when safety was brought into question people thought it would spoil motor racing. Jackie Stewart had a large part to play in making his sport safer and here Mr Brundle points out that there is still more to do. Great article @martinbrundle.
No he didn’t. Great article but that was not the message. Rewatch. You can tell that Martin’s opinion on safety features on cars has a duality to it. “ safety features give a false sense of security “ - “ safety features make cars heavier so they’re more dangerous when things go really wrong”… If anything he’s saying we need to do less, not more and that danger is what makes racing exciting, and has to be an accepted part of the sport.
How would you interpret his comments about how safety features make cars more dangerous? You also need to read up on what ‘If anything’ means ~ as I did not say he ‘is’ saying we should do less… I’m tentatively suggesting that to reinforce the statement I just made that he is not calling for more safety measures.
Also Brundle; "I enjoyed racing this weekend as much as ever," he remarked afterwards. "When an FPA car became available, this unique window of opportunity to race against my son at the magnificent Spa track was an easy decision. I was very pleased and even relieved to find that I still have speed and commitment.
@@sethtenrecthat was never his point? Watch it again. His point is that it's dangerous, but that's one of the main aspects of racing. There are many, many dangerous jobs in the world. Why is F1 any different
@@XenonArcher I think his point is formula one needs to be made safer. There’s no reason for people to die for our amusement. Think about Jim Clark and Mark Donahue etc… that era when people were dying right and left in race cars . They’ve made quite a few improvements. It’s just time to make a few more now..
@@XenonArcher here’s another thought, just this past weekend it could’ve been Max Verstappen in qualifying, if he gotten killed, there would’ve been more of an uproar about that horrible “flat out with no vision” part of the track. Max almost lost it there.
@@sethtenrec did you watch the video? He's highlighting the danger, yes. But also highlighting the fact that racing drivers risk their lives every time they get in the car and that they accept that. Being scared means you can't race to your full potential.
The recent accident was further down the straight though, where there is pretty much no runoff at all. About a cars width of grass and then the barrier. That area needs widening so the car doesn't come back on the track or other cars don't slide down the barrier into a car, then flinging them back on track
There are plenty of straights like that especially street circuits so it's something you are never going to avoid and especially now that F1 are going to more street circuits. All it takes is someone to lose the car at swimming pool in Monaco and cars coming around the corner not knowing what's on the other side and it's a massive bottle neck leading to a massive crash.
The incident was caused from racing in terrible conditions, not because the straight is too unsafe. As above, many many straights around the world are similar, and you would bounce back on the track if you crashed there. But people rarely do, and they aren't racing in such poor visibility conditions that would cause a horrible accident
It cannot be widened, that is the problem. The topography is difficult as mentioned and the circuit simply doesn't own the land to make those massive changes even if they wanted to. If you want to make it safer a chicane somewhere between La Source and the bottom of the hill is the answer. Maybe only used when it is wet - but obvs that brings up a whole load more issues. It's probably just something that has to be accepted. But it's time and place within the F1 circus is probably limited anyway. Will we see it beyond it's current contract? Perhaps not.
@@Pricelessmile It's a combination isn't it though. It's almost always wet there. You don't see people killed on any other part of the track. So yes the conditions are an issue, but you could also say that they are pretty much an intrinsic part of the sector/circuit. Also it wasn't the straight. The accident unfolded there but it would never have happened if it wasn't for the nature of the corner before it.
It's been said countless times before, but sometimes the worst decisions come as a result of a snap reaction to a terrible event. I have disagreed with a lot of the rhetoric Martin has espoused in recent years, but like he said, the drivers must accept the risks when stepping into the car, or they should walk away. There is also something to be said for drivers driving to the conditions and knowing the limits. A corner is only dangerous if the driver makes it dangerous.
a corner is only dangerous if a driver makes it dangerous🤣eau rouge and raidllion is taken at like 300 kph, it is bloody dangerous no matter who is driving. The only solution is to widen the run off area. It really is that simple. Knock down the grandstand and widen the run off on the left. Otherwise Spa is in danger of being removed from the calendar
@@Tom-wr6mq Every streetcourse on the f1 calendar is more dangerous than Spa, we just don't see that many crashes, because these events are only once a year.
One of the best pieces I've seen on a track I had the privilege to race on and won there as well. There will undoubtedly be questions on how to widen the Kemmel straight and maybe add some gravel run-off once extended, to stop cars bouncing back on the track.
One thing that might soften the resistance to slowing Eau Rouge/Raidillon down is that before the modern track was made in the late 70s early 80s, it was in fact a slower corner, the F1 cars up till 1970 faced a corner that ran more to the left runoff area in the dip and beginning of the climb, and then a tighter Raidillon at the top. Changing the layout to this should make it a lot safer in wet conditions as the speeds over the brow are lower with less risk of a car veering off with enough speed to be catapulted back on track with the current runoffs. Sounds like something that can be seriously considered to be done whilst maintaining the historical nature of the circuit. I bet in the dry it is a very nice challenge to have as well even if not flat, for that very reason!
The fact that it was a T bone crash was the real issue, not the track. It was the exact same issue with Anton's crash, sadly. The track is just a track, the safety of the cars in T bone incident is the real issue that remains. Bless you Dilano.
There are multiple areas of improvement, in that case the collision would be avoided if the car hadn't got back on track after the shunt. Gravel traps were invented also to prevent this
@@hexgraphica Absolutely right, these things can be altered with zero change to the track. These sorts of improvements have been an ongoing part of F1, ever since safety became a focus point. If traps are utilized more, there would be little to no "bouncing back" onto the track. The side impact issue seems to be the last step that needs to be taken in the evolution of the cars now.
Top of Raidillon is still not sufficient as a run off. They should have fixed this as part of the changes by building a reinforcement structure at the bank. No excuse.
@@ab8jeh But the crash didn't happen at the top of Raidillon, it happened 500 meters into the straight, and it would've happened regardless of the circuit
It’s an amazing corner. Leave it alone or try to make it safer. The drivers know the risks and the cars are very safe now. We don’t want them to get injured or killed but they are the best drivers in the world.
The one thing that grinds my gears, is the ignoration of yellow flags. Or the rule for yellow flags in general. Yellows means slow down, double means be ready to stop. So when yellow's are being waved why are they still going into the corner maybe 20kph less? They need to make those rules stricter, clearer and punish incredibly hard (black flags) for those that ignore.
Hats off to Charles Leclerc and Pierre Gasly for embracing and flying through that section of track on every lap this weekend. Your friend would be proud.
You are completely off topic sir, they raced there for their own joy, career and job. Stop faking wrong topics and misinterpreting long gone events. Leave this fake drama thing to the authors of DTS. F1 is racing and motorsport and not just another reality tv show with cars as a side topic.
@@SH-gd2vs, I am not off topic. There is talk of changing this complex of curves. As Martin says they make up an exciting, challenging and fast section of track that make F1 so brilliant AND dangerous. Otherwise why would we do it? Eau Rouge into Raidilion, like Monaco, like Ferrari is historic and intrinsic to Formula One. The long list of drivers killed on this section of track is sad and they should not be forgotten. I salute Charles and Pierre flying through this section of track because I find it hard to imagine they would not feel emotion driving through there. Anthoine Hubert was a great loss to the sport and especially for them as he was a close friend and rival of theirs. Personally as a fan of the sport, my character is to be emotionally involved. Am I alone? I remember Stefan Bellof who didn't survive his crash at Raidilion in 1995. Every time we are at Monza I remember Rindt (1970) at the Parabolica. San Marino, I remember connect Rivazza with Roland Ratzenberger and the Tamburello with Ayrton Senna, both of them tragically dying there in 1994. @SH-gd2vs , I cannot stand fake drama. Fake drama is in WWF Smackdown. Netflix and RU-vid has turned F1 into a reality show and whether we like it or not we have been sucked in.
Their friend will be proud, that was their life. I ve been to the Senna memorial in Spa this week and got emotional again but he knew the danger and never backed down because that s racing, being scared is losing all the time
Last two deaths have been due to cars rebounding back on track and then getting hit by an approaching car. Perhaps the barriers need to be changed in a way that prevents the rebounding. Deeper, multi-layer barriers that help embed the crashed car in the barrier might help.
The small change I would make regarding safety, is have a high hanging rope with digital-flag-lights just before the top of the hill. That way it is even clearer for the drivers something happened on the actual top of the hill
It was a little unsettling, listening to Gasly after the wet Sprint Race, talk about sending it thru Raidillon, during the drivers podium debrief The drivers have a unique ability to switch off the dark side of motorsport while competing
There are a few extra points to be made. The Eau Rouge into Raidillon S-complex was more pronounced in the 1960s (if the photos are to be believed). Many corners are "blind" on other tracks. Only cars with serious levels of down force can take the corner flat out. Indeed, the key is the exit speed to the Raidillon rather than the entry for cars without aero.
The thing is, eau rouge/raidillion still has virtually zero runoff relative to the speeds the cars are actually going into the corner, particularly at/after the apex of raidillion which is almost always where the cars end up making contact with the barrier and end up flying back onto the track. If they truly wanted to make the corner safe they’d dig up that entire mountain and sacrifice the grandstand.
T-bone accidents in single seaters at high speeds will almost always result in death or horrific injury, no safety upgrades are going to prevent that unfortunately
Barriers should be further back to avoid crashed cars returning to the track (it’s possible to landscape on a large scale) On a wet restart at spa, if there is an incident there, instantly hit the safety car button. Can’t have drivers at the back who don’t slow down for yellow flags going high speed into a crash site
They can't. There are forests that are protected. That area also suffers from heavy rainfall. Ever watched that film where people build a giant dirt mound on top of a big hill just to get it classed as a mountain? Yeah, the mound got washed away by rain. These things aren't that possible my dude. What would help is repaving the track with porous tarmac like zoab. It offers less grip, which would slow the cars down, and also eliminates spray
I think the best way now its a bit too late now as they have built a massive grand stand at the top of raidilon is to make the run off way larger with a massive gravel trap. As then there is more time for the car to slow down and less of an impact and even more time for a driver to react etc. Thats what I think
Yes, fast corners are great. What's not great is a geometry of retaining walls that bounce cars back to the middle of the road. and unsighted climb where a damaged car could be waiting after being bounced into the course.
On Van't Hoffs accident there was 15 seconds from the first car spinning until the deadly crash. They could have called a SC in that time easily. At least F1 drivers have that signal on the dashboard and could lower the speed.
@@GhtPTR A SC is way more drastic than a double yellow. You have to reduce into a delta and will definitely get a serious penalty if you just go full speed after SC is deployed. Back then a double yellow only meant to reduce speed (a short lift is enough) and was probably compared to your last lap. When in the lap before you had less rain you will be slower anyway and say to yourself "then I can go as fast as I can, I will be slower anyway and get no penalty". Probably that is what happened as there the rain was increasing. Also you had that vehicle on the track which he only hit with 150kmh. Otherwise the crash would have been harmless when there was no crane on the track.
Biggest area of improvements should be side impacts. Its what caused the latest fatality. If I recall, Antoine was also from a side impact. Until improvements are made there, it will still have the potential to occur again.
Anthoine also had a massive hit into the tire barrier immediately before he got t-boned, so it was a secondary impact at the most vulnerable part of the crash structure. There was really no way to make the car much safer in those circumstances without greatly transforming the design of the car.
If something really is to be done about eau rouge/raidillon, then it it to remove the stands there (or massively rework it to be hanging above a run-off that goes under it,) and create massive run-offs to be sure to slow down cars that are gonna crash, instead of sending them bouncing back on the track. The corner doesn't need to be slower, nor removed.
I only have one real complaint about the corner and it's always been the case since my earliest F1 memory which is of Michael Schumacher winning at Spa in 1992. My concern is at Eau Rouge they turn left go through the compression and then turn right. At the point of turning right, the barrier on the left comes across and then opens up - I feel this barrier needs to open up far, far more and earlier to really allow more dissipation of energy before a car hits that corner of the barrier which pitches the car in to would be oncoming traffic. We must all help the track, the drivers, the spectators etc... be as safe as possible knowing full well it would be nigh on impossible to achieve 100% safety. Respect to Martin Brundle.
The main problem is, the cars on track do not know of a crash occurring ahead of them early enough. Set up a few static cameras at Eau Rouge, Raidillion, and the slight right kink heading down Kemmel, all facing down the track direction (and preferably, all being situated above the middle of the track). Have 3 ppl watching these corner during races. In the event of an accident, they should be able to press a button, and all cars go into safety car alert mode. This should be enough notice that drivers are able to react quickly enough, and bleed off speed quickly, and safely enough.
Very good video. I think Spa race track staff must just invest in more track blower tractors, machines to clear standing water and manage the race weekend like it was done this weekend. I think it was handled much better than before and we were able to have a show despite the massive amounts of rain.
Or just repave it with a porous surface that naturally drains away water much faster. This exists. It's called zoab. It also offers less grip which would slow the cars down without changing the typology of the track
@@danieljoubert7937 how? We see track surfaces get repaved a lot, resulting in more grip in certain sections. Each track surface is different. Part of racing is learning and adapting to differing grip levels. If drivers can't do that, then they aren't in the right type of work are they
@@danieljoubert7937 also, we're talking wet conditions. Even f1 cars can't go up raidillon flat in wet conditions without going wide. We saw that in qualli when ricciardo tried to and went wide, getting his time deleted. With a porous track surface, there will also be more grip in the rain as there should be very little water on the surface of the tarmac. It would reduce grip in the dry, but again, drivers should be able to adapt. If it gets repaved, the drivers need to feel the grip anyway. They do this in practice. They'll most likely have to slow a little bit more than usual, which would increase the safety.
As James Hunt put it - "There's a lie that all drivers tell themselves. Death is something that happens to other people, and that's how you find the courage to get in the car in the first place. The closer you are to death the more alive you feel. But more powerful than fear itself, is the will to win."
Martin effectively saying it is what it is...which in reality is very safe. Shame we don't get any extreme wet races anymore, would like to see some analysis say between Fuji 2007/Spa 2008 and now regarding spray/visibility and if it is a lot worse or if we're just more risk averse. And secondly if extreme wet races are no longer going to be allowed F1 should have some metrics/measurements/rules in place to explain to the audience when a race can or can not be started (or continue).
For the pinnacle of motorsport to not be able to race in the rain is very disappointing. But for now it is what it is, it's a fact these cars and tyres are not suitable for rain be it due to visibility, aquaplaning, 0 grip etc. I hope FIA and Pirelli can sort out these issues so we get to enjoy safe and exciting racing in the wet
@@Neo_mode Sadly it's the advances that they've made that make it so dangerous in the rain. They create way more spray, and they are so much heavier, making them harder to corral in the event control is lost.
Then you are absolutely wrong. That's what makes them the heroes they are. Just like firefighters or any other high-risk job. Without the danger they lose their allure. As Martin says. If you aren't prepared for the risk then walk away.
Ok then how do you completely eliminate the possibility of death in Motorsport? No one is saying it’s an acceptable outcome, but it’s a very real possibility given the nature of the sport.
The problem in my opinion is that the cars seem to abnormally often come back onto the circuit during a high speed section. Obstacles on track through blind corners are not "part of racing". Could it be something as simple as adjusting the angles of the fencing that could change the trajectory of a car off track? Or maybe something more complex? Or maybe we just shrug our shoulders because that's easier? Doesn't much seem like the spirit of F1 to me.
What killed Dilano wasn't the track, it was the greed of the organizers wanting to push through with a race with conditions similar to Spa 21', but instead of professional drivers participating, they had young, up and coming talent that didn't have a say regarding their own safety lest they be ostracized for cowardice
if there was gravel runoff at the edge of raidillion and the start of the kemmel straight, would that help at all? because both Anthoine and Dilano just bounced off and went back to the racing line if i remember correctly
I think someone needs to develop something similar to IndyCar - catching-netting. The issue is when a crash happens and the car comes back onto the track - i think there's room to develop something that can be put on the barriers there that when a car impacts it, wraps around the car and with some elastic/bungee type catches the car and gives a little elastic room but then gradually stiffens and stops the car spinning back onto the live track.
Random thought but with the large run of on the left side, would adding a extra layer to the existing tire barrier help? When I say extra layer something else, not just another tire wall but possibly some other material that will absorb the force before the chat hits the harder tire wall...? Im sure this option has been explored already tho.
Maybe they could expand the asphalt area and push the barrier slightly forward and back which, theoretically reduce the speed of vehicle to the incoming obstacle and hopefully reduce the possible damage to both cars and drivers
The thing is, its possibly a very simple thing to change that can fix whats happened i believe. The actual corner itself isnt the main problem. Its the barrier! If the barrier didnt come back in and follow the corner as an s shape, you wouldnt get these cars getting thrown back out into the track. If that barrier from the bottom of Eau Rouge went straight up the hill and joined onto the main straight where its starts you wouldnt have this problem. Take the grandstand and barrier right back away from the corner itself.
Indeed. It's infuriating seeing the changes they just made and still not a sufficient barrier and run off at the top of Raidillon. Yes it would have involved some reinforcement structure for the bank but they really should have done it. It's so frustrating seeing this.
Have you looked at the barrier since it was changed in 2022? It does basically what you say, and there have been big crashes there that prove the changes are working. Look at Van de Zande's crash there this year. In the past, he'd have been fired back into the danger zone.
@@salkdhfpoahergpoahre1534yes and it clearly doesn't. There is no need what so ever for that barrier and grandstand to be that close to the track. Move the whole lot back like 60/70yards that way cars won't get thrown back into the face of oncoming cars. Why does a barrier need to be 10yards off the side of the track on a high speed corner?? It doesn't!
@@Carpfishing4400 It is that close to the track because they'd have to dig out more of the mountain to make any further changes, which are likely unnecessary given that the changes they made last year have already proven to be effective
Fortunately, fatal crashes nowadays require several extreme circumstances to occur all at once, rather than something that is a likely possibility as it was up until 1995. An example of that is Grosjean at Bahrain, several things went wrong with the Armco failing, the fencing failing, the car's internals failing, but the halo saved his life.
Martin summed it up beautifully, danger is apart of it, as it is apart of all walks off life. We can’t be shocked by it or try to avoid taking appropriate risks. You can’t remove it, nor should we seek to remove it fully just because it exists. Everytime a driver steps on the track he risks his life, that’s what people watch.. how what might kill someone, untrained etc, doesn’t kill another who has learnt and art / craft / skill to ,on the outset, appear to have mastered danger. Anyone can flip plastic swords around and catch them..
Why can't they put multiple red lights above and spanning that area of the track that indicates an accident is at the top of the hill giving the drivers a bit of chance to slow down before reaching the crest? Have they considered it yet? You could have a person in a tower that pushes a button immediately if an accident happens at the top.
Any corner with a blind exit has the potential to have these types of accidents. If you dont know that a car is stopped on the racing line its hard to avoid. No matter how safe motorsports get. There will always be a risk. One major issue is that drivers and teams are always looking for a competitive advantage. They will do the bare minimum to say they slowed in an unsafe area.
The only other way i can see eau rouge being safer but keeping the speed would be to add a crash box at the end the endurance pit lane. From the recent crashes ive seen the tyre wall on the exit is what bounced the race car back onto the racing line so having a crash box would prevent that 🤔
It's the wall on the left that was the issue, and it was pushed back and straightened in 2022. Hubert hit the tires on the right and then got clobbered by another car because they were avoiding a car that went off to the left and came back into the racing line, so everyone was taking evasive action.
It isn't the corner's fault; it's the rain's fault. More specifically, the large amount of water that gets launched into the air and prevents visibility. Also, it's due to the fact that F1 cars have little to no protection on the sides (unlike the front with crash structure and rear with all the components shielding you), and adding something to the sides would make cars even wider and heavier. In my opinion, just add mandatory full wheel covers that can be put on and removed in a short period of time (something like the front wing replacement) and make them mandatory to put on with wet tires.
@@Jesus_H._Tap-DancingChrist Brazil 1994, Jos Verstappen’s Benetton went flying and one of the tires actually glanced Brundle’s helmet while attached to the car.
This corner must be kept as it is. I'm in just as much danger at work but I don't get paid millions and I don't enjoy it. Take away the danger take away the trill.
What I don't understand is why they don't build a bridge out to extend the runoff. They've built runways on bridges, they can manage a couple of cars. Stick a gravel trap where the tarmac runoff is now, and have tarmac afterwards. Gravel always calms drivers down because of the DNF risk and you can extend the bridge as far as you need for safety
Simple Solution Folks: 1. Real time sensors in cars measured by central system 2. Sensor limits (eg, Impact, Deceleration, Rotation, etc) trigger system to act 3. All cars receive instanteous feedback (everything from visual/audio alert to driver's to automatic rev limiting on power application).
Making the car get to the limit and having not enough passive energy dissipation in place are different things. Going ip the hill the left side of radillon needs to be widened, and some speed reducing surface installed. The exit right hand side needs an extended runoff. This wont stop accidents, but it will give drivers a bit more time and space to avoid pile-ups
If an F1 car nosed into the cockpit side of another F1 car would it have a similar outcome to Hubert and Van’t Hoff? Or are F1 cars safety cells stronger?
I would replace the wall with "safer barrier" at the eau-rouge radillon complex because the speeds are near what it is on some oval. Maybe look at the surface to decrease the grip ever so slightly: they are flat out, so if it can induce a bit of a lift and go maybe 15 km/h slower... I say that because in the 1970s they were lifting in these corners. But that's pretty much it. Can't make miracles on such a track.
why don't they put a big screen at the bottom of eau rouge that is linked to a camera that is showing footage of the top of the crest only so that cars know what is happening ahead
You can't always avoid rain but could the race not be programmed in a month less likely to rain and therefore reduce risk? It will always be unsighted but you can't remove all risk or it won't be worth watching/competing.
Every ticket says on it "Motor Racing is Dangerous". Safety has progressed a long way and T-bone accidents are rare but there should be some way to limit the impact.
The problem stems from the fact the cars have a habit of bouncing off said barriers and returning to the track If widening the runoff areas aren't an option then improvements to the barriers is only other solution I can think of
The entire TT doesn't compare to Eau Rouge; that corner - a less than 1km part of [Spa] track - has a kill ratio far greater than TT ever had (in any year). Try compare any 1km on TT with that 1km utmost deadly blind corner and you will understand Brundle's statement.
I guess the solution would be to limit where possible fast corners with an unsighted exit - at least in most corners you can take avoiding action but when it's blind you remove that possibility. In poor visibility potentially some series could look into lower power modes to keep the top speed of the cars lower, in an extension to F1 disabling DRS for example - that would help lower any impact energy but also keep the cars racing in poor conditions?
The one thing I disagree with in this is the part where he talks about the run-off area. Eau Rouge has enough now thanks to the recent changes made, however it's clear that the Kemmel Straight doesn't have adequate run-off. The barriers are separated from the track by a very thin strip of grass that is barely wide enough for a F2 car, and I believe that played just as significant a part in Hoff's crash as the wet conditions did. It's no longer Eau Rouge and Raidillon that are the death traps, thank God, it's the straightaway after them that needs to be fixed now. Danger in racing is always going to be a thing, like Martin says, but death traps must be erased.
Extreme sports are crazy. Can't believe people can do such things. The respect I have for any of them just cannot be measured. Just. how? My insides would just explode out of my ass going up these corners.
That F2 race with Dilano should not have run. Shocking weather conditions, the entire field were running behind the safety car & then decided to run again for a two lap finish. Outrageous decision that cost a life. If that was an F1 race they would not have left them on track
Easier said than done. The bedrock is almost to surface. There is effectively no absorption into the ground, the result is streams flowing which then cross the circuit multiple times.
