|
DEFINITIONS:
SAFETY (sAf' tE), noun, plural - 1. the quality or condition of being safe; freedom from harm or danger; 2. freedom from risk or possible damage or hurt; safeness.
SPEED (spEd), noun - 1. swift or rapid movement; quickness in moving from one place to another or in doing something; 2. rate of movement; 3. an arrangement of gears to give a certain rate of movement (an automobile usually has three SPEEDs forward and one backward).
All week long I have been struggling with how I was going to write this article. I usually read about the equivalent of a newspaper section about Formula One each day (in the form of websites, stuff on my Palm Pilot, email newsletters, and magazines). This week, I cranked it up another notch, visiting every website I could, reading every opinion I could, and doing a fair bit of research - because I have something that, I feel, is important to say - and I haven't seen anyone else say it yet. Let me explain…
It's Sunday, and by now you've had a week to think about the events that transpired at the Grand Prix in Melbourne, Australia - and, no, unfortunately, I am NOT talking about the race. I'm talking about the freak accident that claimed the life of Spectator Marshall Graham Beveridge.
I want to make something very clear at the outset - I believe that what happened to Mr. Beveridge was a true tragedy. What follows is not designed to make light of that, or to in any way trivialise the fact that a human life was lost. My sincerest condolences are extended to the family of Mr. Beveridge, a brave volunteer who was killed while helping the sport he loved.
What I can no longer take, however, is the knee-jerk comments and reactions that I have had to read over the last week - from other writers, and most importantly Max Mosley - that insist that the sport needs to, once again, be made SLOWER in order to save lives.
It is simply not true. In my mind, making the cars slower has NOTHING to do with making the sport safer. Let me re-phrase that (with apologies to John Cleese): This is just the sort of blinkered philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect every time someone is killed at a Grand Prix, and I'm sick and tired of having my intelligence insulted by people like Max Mosley. Yes, it is tragic that two marshals have been killed in the last five races, but before the FIA go off and pull another "Senna" reaction, here are my arguments against any efforts to modify the cars in order to slow them down further.
First, let's discuss exactly what Formula One is. It is not, as some (myself included) would love to believe, the "ultimate evolution" of motorcar racing. It is not, as many of us would like it to be, exclusively about the drivers and their talent. It is, first and foremost, about the cars. Incredible pieces of advanced technology, purpose designed to meet exacting specifications, and push the technological envelope in the hopes of ultimately advancing the cause of the everyday automobile. These amazing pieces of machinery are piloted around demanding circuits by even more amazing human beings, who, somehow, have the amazing ability to control all of this technology, and hurl these hunks of metal, rubber, and composite materials around an asphalt ribbon with the manic purpose of completing the requisite number of laps faster than any other human being could. Formula One is, for all of its faults, the perfect blend of Technology and Driving - It is not the exclusive domain of either one.
If you don't believe me, watch a CART, IRL, NASCAR, Le Mans, or Sportscars race, where you will see loads of things not normally seen in F1 (minor racing elements like passing, multiple pit stops, drafting, and pulse-pounding excitement). Alas, while Formula One is probably the most advanced series technologically (and monetarily), it is not the most exciting. But, that's also what makes Formula One so much fun to follow - what goes on inside the paddock, behind closed doors, and in the media forms part of the overall spectacle. There's a good portion of "Soap Opera" in the world of F1 - and without it, I'm not so sure there would be as much interest as there is today.
Over the last week, I have read articles from the sublime ("Speeds need to be reduced, because it would lead to more exciting racing") to the ridiculous ("Perhaps the rear wings should be removed, taking downforce away from the rear wheels in order to really make the drivers work harder, and separate the wheat from the chaff"). One simple question: Why? Why must we reduce speeds? I have yet to see a logical argument for lowering speeds that actually makes any kind of sense.
There are three other things that most people have failed to consider about last weekend's race:
First, I have seen little genuine recognition of the kind of hero that Graham Beveridge was. These volunteer marshals are not only incredibly well trained and essential to the race, but the simple fact that Mr. Beveridge was standing exactly where he was supposed to - right in front of the fence opening - and ensuring that other fans were NOT, hasn't even been mentioned yet by any of the publications I have read. This was a freak, one-in-a-billion accident that the wheel came through an access space in the fence so small that it barely fit - and because Mr. Beveridge was doing his (volunteer) job, the tire hit HIM squarely in the chest, and didn't hit a paying spectator, or two, or three, possibly killing them. He should be remembered and
recognized for (however unwillingly) saving the lives of other spectators.
Second, let's understand that the fact that seven spectators were injured at the race is an indication that safety at that track is not all it could have been (regardless of what the
organizers of the Australian Grand Prix would have you believe). As a colleague of mine pointed out, "the death and injuries were a result of believing that nothing of consequence could get through that hole in the fence. It may have been a billion to one shot, but they (the Australian GP organizing committee) violated a golden rule: Keep one barrier between the cars and the spectators at all times. Albert Park isn't the only temporary circuit in the F1 season - In Canada, at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, if there is any opening in the debris fence, for whatever reason, it is backed up by a smaller structure. Other than the seats in grandstands that are above the fence, no spectator is ever directly exposed to the cars." Well stated, and something the Albert Park people might want to consider for next time.
Third, there seems to be a total lack of understanding that Jacques Villeneuve walked away from the incredibly-co-incidentally-the-same-one-that-killed-his-father accident that sent the tire through the hole in the fence in the first place. Anyone who can hearken back to the practice session at Zolder in Belgium in 1982 experienced a bizarre flashback after seeing Jacques' shunt on Sunday. The only difference is, Jacques survived (at nearly 180 miles per hour, let's not forget) the same type of accident that his father did not. Why? Because, today, the monocoques that protect the driver are far superior, the modern chassis' are far stronger and safer due to FIA regulations, the cars are designed to absorb and diffuse impact forces (and, as a result, tend to mostly disintegrate on impact), and there was no full concrete wall for JV to crash into. Instead, there was a partial concrete / partial fence wall, which did the job it was supposed to do and directed the airborne heavy object that used to be Jacques' car into a proper runoff area. The shunt was so severe that even Ralf Schumacher ran over to see if Jacques was all right (even though Jacques effectively ended his day by driving into his left rear wheel). The simple fact that Jacques survived the shunt in Melbourne, and is still here, alive, on planet Earth, is probably the truest indication of how much improvement has actually been made in terms of the safety of Formula One.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that Jacques (and Mika, and Michael in qualifying) all walked away from horrific crashes this weekend, for the most part, no worse for wear. That's the last three World Champions, all involved in major shunts over the weekend - and one of them even wound up winning the race. With that in mind, what the heck is the issue with safety in the first pace?
The answer, unfortunately, appears to be that the FIA in general (and Max Mosley
in particular) seem obsessed with ruining the sport by introducing yet another round of "restrictions" that will slow the cars down, and ensure that they don't go any faster, at least until the end of the 2007 season (when the current agreement between the team owners and the FIA expires). And don't get me started on all the changes Max already wants to introduce to replace the safety car with speed limiters and the like…That's another column in itself. Regardless of the support that Johnny "I couldn't land a ride in CART so I'm a test driver at Arrows this year and incredibly happy - no, really" Herbert has thrown toward the sanctioning body ("The FIA are doing the best they can in terms of safety"), what remains is the FIA instantly responding to the tragedy by insinuating that SPEED WAS A FACTOR IN THE DEATH OF THE MARSHAL AT THE GRAND PRIX, and that the cars MUST BE SLOWED DOWN.
Which is, of course, total and complete BULLS#!T. Poor Mr. Beveridge would be equally dead had he been hit by a tire
traveling at 60 MPH, let alone one traveling at 160 MPH. It was a completely freak accident, and I prefer to remember it in the words of Mr. Beveridge's wife at his funeral: "He loved the sport and, while he knew the risks, the buzz he got from those race meetings only increased his passion. He was killed doing something he loved. He wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was in the right place at the wrong time."
The FIA are panicking now, of course, simply because that following the death of Senna in 1994, Formula One was fatality-free until the death of race marshal Paulo Giselmberti at Monza last year. Now, the FIA have to explain away the deaths of TWO marshals in FIVE races. In my mind, it is nothing but a public relations ploy by the FIA and Max to immediately create the illusion of increasing safety, by introducing the possibility of slowing the cars down - regardless of whether or not that will provide any real safety advances on the track. Even the majority of devoted Senna fans will argue that the changes made to slow the cars down in 1994 went too far, and removed an amazing amount of excitement from the sport itself.
So, what does Safety have to do with Speed? Well, by now you know what I think - that the teams should be given the flexibility they need to build the fastest car they possibly can, and push the technological envelope in the process. But the simplest truth can't be ignored - No matter how much money and time and effort is placed on trying to make the sport safer, THINGS HAPPEN AT SPEED. Every driver, every fan, and every marshal - everyone (but the FIA, it seems) understands that danger is part of the sport. Read the definitions I included at the beginning of the article again, and you'll see that speed and safety are miles apart - nearly opposing forces. The FIA should be commended for the majority of safety innovations and rules that have been implemented, but please STOP trying to slow the sport down! That's not the answer!
In fact, mucking about with speed, and making all the cars run at roughly the same pace is, in my opinion (and the opinion of most drivers) MORE dangerous. Look at NASCAR - Look at the work they have done with restrictor plates & aerodynamics packages for races on the Super Speedways - All the cars bunched up together, three or four wide. It was only a matter of time before the kind of multi-vehicle wreck that took out a ton of cars at Daytona this year, and almost cost Tony Stewart his life. You think that's making the sport safer? Watch the NASCAR race this weekend, where the cars will be sans restrictor plates and aero packages. You tell me which is safer.
If the FIA overreacts to these most recent deaths, my concern is that they will introduce things that will actually reduce safety in F1. David Coulthard said last week that with the raised front wing this year, going into corners is slipperier and more difficult because of the reduced downforce, and the grip from the new tires only fixed some of the problem. These guys want to go fast, and will push their cars to (and occasionally beyond) the limit. Technologically or aerodynamically retarding the cars is not the answer.
Still don't believe me? Here is a partial list of fatalities at Grands Prix since 1960 that I have spent a considerable amount of time researching. You be the judge:
· Chris Bristow - Driver - Killed at Spa in 1960. Contributing factors: Wet weather, no proper run-off, and inadequate driver safety measures.
· Alan Stacey - Driver - Killed at Spa in 1960. Contributing factors: Wet weather, no proper run-off, and inadequate driver safety measures.
· Wolfgang von Trips - Driver - Killed at Monza in 1961. Contributing factors: No proper trackside fence.
· 14 Spectators - Killed at Monza in 1961. Contributing factors: No proper trackside fence.
· Roger Williamson - Driver - Killed at the Dutch Grand Prix in 1973. Contributing factors: Car Fire, and inadequate marshal training on how to deal with the situation.
· Tom Pryce - Driver - Killed at Kyalami, 1977. Contributing factors: Drove into marshal who was improperly on the track; struck in the head by the fire extinguisher that the marshal was carrying at the time.
· Marshall - Kyalami, 1977. Contributing factors: Marshal was out on the track where and when he shouldn't have been.
· Gilles Villeneuve - Zolder, 1982. Contributing factors: Inadequate fencing constructed entirely of concrete, and partial seat belt failure.
· Roland Ratzenberger - Imola, 1994. Contributing factors: Front wing failure, and improper runoff area.
· Ayrton Senna - Imola, 1994. Contributing factors: Steering failure, and improper runoff area.
· Paolo Gisemberti (Marshall) - Monza, 2000. Contributing factors: Stories indicate that the marshal was standing in a restricted (inappropriate) area, not behind a proper safety wall, and was struck by a flying wheel
· Graham Beveridge - Melbourne, 2001 - Contributing factors: 1 in 1,000,000,000 freak accident,
tire flies through access hole in fence and strikes marshal in the chest.
Yes, speed was a factor in most of these accidents. That's because the cars were moving around this thing called a racetrack, where the objective is to go faster than everybody else and be the first person to the
checkered flag. But they didn't go 200 MPH in 1960, and Bristow and Stacey are still just as dead.
Folks, it's called racing. And it's dangerous. And no matter what series you follow, you know that there is always the possibility that someone could die. It's tragic when it happens, but it's part of the deal - and no amount of tinkering and mucking about with rules & regulations is ever going to take that away from the sport. If you can't deal with it, find another sport to follow. And please, Max, don't muck with my sport.
Copyright 2001 Glenn
Anderson and AutoRacing1.com
The author can be contacted at contacts@autoracing1.com
Go to
our
forums
to discuss this article
|
