I don't think any form of motor racing is "too safe".
However, we just got back from the ALMS race at Lime Rock, and that circuit reminded me of how it used to be. The track doesn't have paved runoffs large enough to land an A380 on, as do the F1 tracks--there is a double row of Armco surrounding the track, with trees nearby as well.
Does that mean the track is too dangerous to race on, as F1 would undoubtedly say? Obviously, other forms of racing don't think it is. It is also worth noting that in the ALMS race, there were 5 different classes of cars on the track at the same time, with vast differences in speeds, which meant that overtakes were commonplace. Indeed, the winning car came from 4 laps down, and regained all of that ground through racecraft, not through the retirement of competitors.
I think all of this begs the question- should ther be a never-ending quest for less dangerous tracks, or should the idea of "safe enough" come into being. After all, to make F1 as safe as possible, the end result would be for the cars to be remotely piloted vehicles (and the World Champion could then be a 300 kg pilot), and the circuits would be surrounded with 5 meter high walls of bullet-proof lexan to protect the spectators. Is that what anyone would truly want?
However, we just got back from the ALMS race at Lime Rock, and that circuit reminded me of how it used to be. The track doesn't have paved runoffs large enough to land an A380 on, as do the F1 tracks--there is a double row of Armco surrounding the track, with trees nearby as well.
Does that mean the track is too dangerous to race on, as F1 would undoubtedly say? Obviously, other forms of racing don't think it is. It is also worth noting that in the ALMS race, there were 5 different classes of cars on the track at the same time, with vast differences in speeds, which meant that overtakes were commonplace. Indeed, the winning car came from 4 laps down, and regained all of that ground through racecraft, not through the retirement of competitors.
I think all of this begs the question- should ther be a never-ending quest for less dangerous tracks, or should the idea of "safe enough" come into being. After all, to make F1 as safe as possible, the end result would be for the cars to be remotely piloted vehicles (and the World Champion could then be a 300 kg pilot), and the circuits would be surrounded with 5 meter high walls of bullet-proof lexan to protect the spectators. Is that what anyone would truly want?