Technical The End Of The Parabolica! Do we really need tarmac?

The corner itself hasn't changed so I don't believe we will see any difference in the racing there regardless of the what is on the run off area, the rules state that the car has to remain on track any speed benefit gained by going out wider will be lost due to the driver making the track longer which goes against the number one rule of making the track as short as possible.

When they put tarmac on the run off area to the hairpin in Canada I didn't see any significant changes in the way the drivers took that corner..
 
With actual mechanical failure being a rarity in Formula 1 now, most "offs" are due to the driver. That being the case, why do they have to make the circuits so "safe" that the most idiotic buffoon driver can get away scot-free with only a fraction of a second penalty? Shouldn't these self-proclaimed "best drivers on earth" be able to keep it on the road?

They may as well just lay out circuits on old runways since they are either doing away will all of the challenging circuits or corners to cater to the lowest common denominator.
 
To be fair cider_and_toast Donnelly's impact was a virtually frontal one, unlike Warwick's. And after Martin's crash they were actually saying that the Lotus chassis did its job because it desintigrated homogeously rather than tore itself apart , thus dissipating much of the impact. He would undoubtedly have been killed otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Ah sorry, I thought you was having a pop at dear old Murray :)

Anyway they used to have even more tarmac on the exit of Parabolica, and something a bit scarier than just grass or gravel separating it from the track:
para.jpg
 
Meph

And how often have you seen something like that happen? "Rarity" does NOT mean NEVER!!!

In any case, judging by your response, I guess I can put you down as favoring F1 only competing on enlarged kart tracks.
 
olegg said:
There was two terrible incidents in the Parabolica (1961, 1970).
Was there the gravel or "smooth" surface in these situations?
Click to expand
The photo shows the mid-way point of the corner. Both the accidents you refer to, 1961 (Von Trips) and 1970 (Rindt) happened on the entry to the Parabolica, in fact both accidents were well under way before the entry to the corner and happened at the end of the straight prior the the right hand Parabolica. Von Trips was tragically left dead on the left hand side of the track at the end of the straight. Rindt also hadn't reached the right hand turn when he touched the brakes. He immediately lost control and his car, destabilised by the removal of the rear wing, veered left and went partially under the armco before the Parabolica. He never even had the chance to try to turn right. The reason I've offered so much detail is to point out nothing they've done to the Parabolica would have had any impact on either of these tragic accidents.
 
Last edited:
siffert_fan said:
With actual mechanical failure being a rarity in Formula 1 now, most "offs" are due to the driver. That being the case, why do they have to make the circuits so "safe" that the most idiotic buffoon driver can get away scot-free with only a fraction of a second penalty? Shouldn't these self-proclaimed "best drivers on earth" be able to keep it on the road?

They may as well just lay out circuits on old runways since they are either doing away will all of the challenging circuits or corners to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand

What you're looking for is a time machine Siffert. These comments simply aren't based in 21st century reality. Formula One circuits have been in constant evolution for two decades now, and even before that changes were not uncommon. And another thing, you can be sure that these alterations are not instigated by "idiot buffoon" drivers so there's really no need to have a go at them.
 
The above debate seems to have arrived at no solution that is safe other than Tarmac run-offs.... So it seems to me that it only leaves a track limit time penalty system..... What's the best way to do that without being subject to variances of stewards opinions?
 
It seems to me that racing in general faces a dilemma. On the one hand is the desire to make it as safe as possible. On the other is the fact that danger has always been an intrinsic part of racing. Indeed, one of the reasons to watch is to see someone taking risks that the average person wouldn't. Reduce those risks too much, and you might as well watch slot-car racing. It may well be that the declining viewing numbers for racing in general are a reflection of the decline in danger, whether we want to admit it or not.
 
Whilst the sport should do all it can to make it safer...will they then penalise drivers for using a bit that is not part of the track then?

I think these circuits with loads of run off areas like Abu Dhabi are not punishing drivers who make mistakes

i mean Vettel a few years spinning on last lap in Canada - he still finished 2nd but the bit he spun off was grass and gravel and would have buried him there

It is just too easy now for drivers to run wide and come back without losing a position
 
@Siff

I can't imagine too many (young) people not becoming Grand Prix racing fans because it isn't dangerous enough. It's been 20 years since we've lost a driver and at that time it had been 12. We're already several generations on from when losing pilots regularly was somehow acceptable. There will always be freak accidents in racing though, and as long as we have open cockpits the risk of fatality remains very real. Every time they take to the track.

We've seen many high impact collisions this season and I'm constantly amazed at the strength of these machines. We're all lucky that safety has long been a first and foremost concern because there was always going to be a time and a place when it would be. The fact that F1's modern safety era is two decades old makes me question the notion that people aren't tuning in (or out?) because the threat of physical injury isn't a likely outcome.

Il_leone

Seb really only went a little wide in Canada.

Alonso chopping the chicken last week is a different story though.
 
Back to the Parabolica. Senna famously had an excursion there in 1987 that cost him the race. It appears that will no longer be a possibility. Although slowing the cars down artificially in the runoff will likely be possible one day. (Not like Paul Ricard)
 
KekeTheKing said:
It's been 20 years since we've lost a driver and at that time it had been 12. /QUOTE]


------------------------------------------------------------

8 years, not 12. Fatal crashes that happen during testing rather than Grand Prix week-ends still count as fatal F1 crashes...
Click to expand
 

Similar threads

F1Brits_90
  • Article
Grand Prix 2024 Japanese Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
2 3
Replies
46
Views
993
RasputinLives
RasputinLives
C
The heck do they call champagne?
Replies
5
Views
481
FB
FB
F1Brits_90
  • Article
Grand Prix 2023 Singapore Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Il_leone
Il_leone
Brogan
Were the FIA correct to change the rules in 2020 to suit Red Bull?
    • Like
Replies
12
Views
1K
Il_leone
Il_leone
FB
  • Article
Grand Prix 2023 Belgian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
Back
Top Bottom