24 Hours of Le Mans: A Useless Race ?

Le Mans typical standing start - 1969 

      The 24 Hours of Le Mans isfamous for being one of the oldest motorsport events in the world still existing to this day. It is above all a major test of reliability.

One of the primary purposes of the automobile when it was invented was to serve as a means of rapid transportation. But apart from the speed and the time saving that this offered, other elements immediately had capital importance in the eyes of the users of this revolutionary invention: first of all, reliability, economy, innovation and then, comfort.

Endurance racing and especially Le Mans 24 Hours has always been an endless source of inspiration for artists

 At the beginning of the automobile, there was no clear distinction between segments & categories, the car was a luxury product that only a privileged minority could afford. It was normal that motorsport was only for luxury sports cars, practically the only ones that existed before the creation of the Ford T. 

This was also the case for the Le Mans Endurance Grand Prix, which has remained faithful to its tradition ever since, and eventually became a sportcars race, then subsequently a sports prototype, supercar, GT & hypercar race.

Le Mans, is considered by many as the "Greatest race in the world"

 With time, public and participants ended up finding this normal, even though the principle of this race does not fit well with the type of cars taking part in it.

Running an endurance event with prototypes, GTs or hypercars has had little technical interest for a long time, because the primary goal of endurance is to be a test of reliability, then of economy & finally a test bench for the latest innovations in not only performance, but also economy, reliability and safety.

Certainly this last criterion (innovation) justifies the prototype category, but is it really necessary to test new solutions on vehicles with no connection, at least apparently, with the production cars? Wouldn't silhouette cars make more sens? and above all, is this the first objective of endurance racing? Doesn’t F1 already play this role?

Le Mans 24 was also the playground for silhouette cars 

  Since the 1950s, motorsport has been divided into several categories that we can simplify this way: 

- Single-seaters focused on pure speed on closed circuits, highlighting especially the drivers, particularly in one-make formulas 

- Rallies for production cars on roads, and on all types of terrain where a car can go. The rallies were precisely aimed at pitting the major manufacturers against each other, hence their beginnings as a manufacturers' world championship before adding a drivers' championship

- Endurance for sports cars, GTs and two-seater prototypes, on closed circuits, but also sometimes in the past using open public roads like the Targa Florio, a mix between rally & endurance. Endurance has always been a manufacturers' championship, and unlike other disciplines, an exclusively international championship with the exception of a few rare countries like the US which have their own endurance series.

However GT cars are not only confined to endurance racing.

- Touring races on circuits, speed and endurance where the international championships have most often been primarily manufacturers' championships. There are also many one-make series for young and gentlemen drivers, mostly on national level. 

- And finally, more marginal categories such as Off-road, hill-climbs and various sprints against the clock, midjets, dragsters, trial, drift...).

This categorization has not always been logical. Paradoxically, motorsport being a sport of technicians, of engineers, and therefore of rational people, it has not always been managed rationally, because reality often imposed compromises for various practical reasons, notably technical and economic. The irrational side also manifested itself through anachronistic traditions that were perpetuated, notably endurance racing with sports and GT cars, among other aberrations.

Find this Le Mans start T-shirt on GPBox MoRoarSport shop

- Why is this an absurd tradition and if so why has it been maintained?

Absurd because with the democratization and then the segmentation of the cars industry, the expectations of customers have diversified: sports and prestige cars respond more to a need for pure speed, raw pleasure, and social distinction, while reliability and economy have become concerns of the majority and therefore a sought-after quality in production cars, a mass consumer product par excellence.

These must now, in addition to being reliable, save energy, be affordable, safe and finally comfortable. The rest of the qualities are secondary and gradually gain importance as they move up the segments towards sports and luxury cars.

The 24 Hours of Le Mans race has always been the ideal place for innovation in motor racing

  However, this absurd tradition of endurance events open to sports cars has been maintained for certain reasons. On one hand, sports car manufacturers wanted to prove that they not only knew how to build high-performance cars, but that this performance did not come at the expense of reliability, particularly of the engines, the main element in old sports cars. Hence the specificity of the Le Mans circuit with its long straights to test the engines at full load, notably the "Hunaudières" straight (or "Mulsanne" as anglo-saxons call it). On the other hand, the inertia of traditions among the public and above all the prestige of Le Mans did the rest.

Porsche 917, maybe the most iconic car in racing History, won Le Mans 2 times, in 1970 and 1971

But technically speaking, even if we owe to Le Mans a number of technical innovations which have greatly benefited the industry, the primary reason for endurance races still remains secondary in the case of sports cars and prototypes.

- Garagists race:

Why Garagists?... Well... Le Mans is known to often be decided by minor incidents, unscheduled or longer stops, often for trivial breakdowns. But that's the lot of all endurance races, and it apparently pleases the public even if it's frustrating to lose a race by so little, and relatively inglorious to win it for some trivial reason. On the other hand, this retains its full meaning when endurance races are run with touring cars whose main attraction is not pure performance in the eyes of the public but above all reliability and economy.

That's why, ideally, it is the 24 Hours of the Nürburgring, and to a lesser extent, the 24 Hours of SPA (speaking of old races in both cases, when they exclusively welcomed touring cars and possibly silhouette and muscle cars) which truly deserve this vocation as the "Greatest endurance race in the world".

But then what would become of Le Mans if that was actually the case?... why not the greatest sports-prototypes race in the world, but lasting no more than 3 hours for example? The public would not necessarily appreciate this change, but let's imagine for a moment a Le Mans race on La Sarthe circuit with as much prestige without being a 24-hour race...

The Indianapolis 500 have just as much popular success without exceeding 3 hours of racing after all.

Le Mans ( circuit de la Sarthe ) layout. One of the longest and fastest tracks in the world

 There is also something absurd about organizing a 24-hour race on a circuit that is not extremely selective, whether in terms of engines, brakes, chassis, driving... in fact only the Nürburgring meet all of these criteria. Le Mans is only of interest for the engines and brakes, which is extremely limiting from an endurance point of view.

Old Nürburgring Map. Vintage Nordschleife Circuit Mug

Talking about the 24 Hours of the Nürburgring, as mentioned above, the modern format may not be the ideal one. The mix of categories, and above all the differences in performance between them, as well as the differences in levels between drivers make this race problematic from a security point of view. 

24 hours of Nürburgring start from the 70s. The ultimate test for touring cars.

  Of course, it's nice to be able to race as an amateur in such a prestigious race. But even with extensive simulator training, it can be challenging to race on this intimidating circuit while maintaining focus on your driving; therefore, adding the requirement to continuously check your mirrors in order to avoid upsetting the GT cars that are approaching from behind at full speed throughout the entire race makes the experience even more dangerous and stressful!  

Not to mention the amplification of difficulty due to the constantly changing weather conditions on this particular circuit, as well as the concerns that this poses, whether in terms of visibility and handling.

In short, a more homogeneous field focused on touring cars, as in the 70s, would be more reasonable and safe, and would certainly make amateur participation less problematic.

Motor sport in the future: Electrocution hazard!

  At a time when the automotive industry is at a crossroads, facing an uncertain future and challenges in terms of energy and ecology, the future of motorsport worries fans and those who make a living from it.

The turn that the FIA seems to be taking in this area rather gives the impression of passively following the movement imposing radical changes. Changes modeled on the orientations of the automobile industry, at the expense of the historical heritage of racing, harming a whole ecosystem that revolves around motorsport.

FIA managers, like the politicians, have their hands tied by the interests and constraints of the industry, and this is understandable. Most of the time, their bravest and most independent decisions revolve primarily around safety. This choice can be explained by the desire to satisfy public opinion which often reacts emotionally to dramas that are increasingly rare in racing. Closer to our era, it is the imperative dictated by modern trends, namely climate, energy and gender parity considerations which guide the FIA's flagship programs. At least, this is what comes up most often in their communication since the time of Jean Todt.

  We can ask ourselves the question of what would then be the ideal program of an FIA president keen to protect the soul of the sport and that would be independent in his decisions, without conflicts of interest and without worrying about what people will say or about the trends imposed by mainstream media, some NGOs or the Silicon Valey lobby.

It is likely that the first measure that the core fan would like to see come to fruition would be to prevent motorsport from falling into the pitfall of greenwashing and electric dictatorship into which bureaucrats, NGOs and politicians seem to want to drag it.

It must be admitted that the automobile in the broad sense should ideally be clean in its daily use, although all-electric is neither possible nor desirable. This is far from being the miracle solution that some people want us to believe. The widespread electric car is an aberration from an ecological point of view, and the forced renewal of an entire fleet of millions of vehicles through restrictive laws and tax incentives remains ecologically harmful, because large-scale industry always has a negative environmental impact (it’s not just CO2 and carbon “neutrality” to take into account). However, city dwellers have the right to live in healthy cities which do not develop primarily around cars traffic. 

However, the automobile is not just an utilitarian object like a washing machine or a refrigerator, very far from it. We cannot include all cars in this purely ecological approach.  Sports and leisure cars, collector's vehicles and racing cars has also the right to exist.

 That we create and encourage competition formulas that are electric or run on other “clean” energies is desirable and logical. The primary purpose of motorsport has always been to serve as a test bed for the progress of the industry, as well as a field of competition between manufacturers. Competition that benefits the entire sector and therefore the consumer in the end.

It goes without saying that in the near future racing categories linked to the evolution of the automobile towards so-called "renewable" energies will develop, provided that these energies are not imposed by artificial trends dictated by more policies than through "spontaneous" evolution and healthy competition between various engine solutions which would ultimately lead to the success of the best one(s). Success not only in terms of performance, but above all in terms of criteria in line with the expectations of contemporary consumers and responding to the constraints of our era, namely, mainly: economy, autonomy, environmental impact, safety, comfort and ease of use.

However, this evolution of sport accompanying the industry should ideally not be to the detriment of thermal engine motorsport. Certainly, the electric sports car could satisfy some enthusiasts who favor pure performance over other equally constitutive aspects of sport cars, such as mechanical nobility and the pleasure - whether it's engine sound or engineering - of an internal combustion engine. But most fans can't separate these elements, and nothing will overshadow the visceral appeal of a beastly rumble of a racing or sport car engine quite like handling a gearbox or executing of a heel and toe.

MoRoarSport Art Print. "Because we like it loud"

  It's time to become aware of the fact that the automobile is a heritage of humanity in the same way as other human creations benefiting from this privileged official status, especially when it comes to exceptional cars. It would be time to look into their preservation, not only by exhibiting them in museums, private garages or historic car shows, but by preserving their right to ride as much on circuits as on roads, at least far from congested urban centers, and especially protect them from the electric high-tech fanatism.

In terms of competition, allowing an increasingly influential branch in the industry (all electric, electronic, batteries, new-tech, GAFAM, etc...) to attack this heritage would be ungrateful. The FIA also has a duty not only to protect historic vehicle competitions, but also not to disfigure traditional championships such as Formula 1 or GT cars, by gradually imposing non-thermal engines on them, or by letting them sink under a flood of electro-complexity and digital engineering which is totally hermetic for spectators and harmful for the sport.

In fact, those 21st century powerful lobbies are siphoning off finances, including public finances, towards these supposedly promising sectors, and this also includes AI through autonomous cars, racing versions of which are also being tested! 

We understand that rallying for example or touring car racing could only follow industry trends, it is their vocation after all. As long as there are rallies and other historic touring races, this is not a problem. But what is the point in pushing Formula 1 or even other categories which are in no way linked to industry, towards this path of excessive electrification or imposed hybridization?

The pioneering role in automotive technology has certainly long been claimed by F1, and also by the 24 hours of Le Mans. But over time, everyone knows that these disciplines, particularly single-seaters, have deviated from this path, and that they live in a somewhat disconnected way with the realities of production cars, especially F1. That being said, one wonders what is the relevance of the choice to impose ecological guidelines on Formula 1 or hypercars... 

For the WEC, ultimately, we can understand it a little, although this category no longer really plays this pioneering role despite its current designation by the term "Prototypes".

Romain Grosjean accident

Persisting on this path is incomprehensible, not to say hypocritical, knowing that events have proven that it contradicts the other priorities of the FIA.

For example, Romain Grosjean's accident which brought to light what we already knew about the danger of explosion and fire specific to batteries. Following the investigation carried out by the FIA, the latter persisted in minimizing this aspect which nevertheless constituted a dangerous throwback to the old times when the first fear of drivers was fire. Instead of confronting this problem, the FIA preferred to ignore the danger of the hybrid engine by highlighting in its report the role played by the Halo in the miraculous survival of Romain Grojean. Halo which could have aggravated the consequences of the accident, Grosjean having had great difficulty getting out of his car and almost even giving up due to the Halo which was blocking him.

1970 Spanish Grand Prix. Jacky Ickx accident

Another illustration of the FIA's inconsistency on this subject is the contradiction between its "climatic" and energy objectives, and the organization of night Grand Prix, knowing the quantity of energy consumed by the giant floodlights. The excuse being to avoid racing in the heatwave in hot countries (Singapore, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia), which is quite ironic (the effects of global warming being the reason for spending even more energy! )...

Another aberration contradicting the federal intentions stated regarding F1 is the multiplication of GPs, as well as the more frequent inter-continental travel that this implies. An escalation motivated by a frantic hunt for new markets and therefore profit. Rather cynical.

Night Grand Prix races are becoming a trend nowadays

  The purpose of this article is not controversy. We know that the choice adopted, for example, in favor of hybrid power units is difficult to question now that it's done. But allowing this type of engine among others instead of imposing the same type on everyone would have been much more technically interesting and fairer, while leaving the door open to a possible revision of the regulations without penalizing the entire F1 field. A subsequent ban or revision of the technical rules would become then entirely possible and without major consequences on the championship. But when a single path is imposed on everyone, going back becomes almost impossible, in the short term at least, due to costs and to the stability rule.

We understand that these mandatory technical choices like all these locked-in regulations, leaving little room for maneuver, come from a legitimate desire to limit costs and to tighten, in theory at least, the hierarchy. Except that this is obviously not the best approach to achieve these goals.

Establishing the rules in modern Formula 1 is a complicated exercise, especially since the stakeholders are companies linked more or less to multinationals with diverse and opposing interests, and which the sport precisely needs in order to survive, at least at the elitist level where it has arrived now.

Renault adventure in Formula 1. The beginning of a new era

It would be much simpler to wipe the slate clean and return to a time when the worm was not yet in the fruit, and where the competitors were practically all artisans of fairly equal level who raced above all out of passion for the sport. But as soon as a factory like Renault put its feet in the courtyard in 1977, Pandora's box was open.

It was not bad in the end, F1 having experienced one of the most epic and interesting eras in its history, both sportingly and technically and in the media since the end of the 70s until the 90s. But given where we have reached now, perhaps it would be better to stop there and start from scratch by returning to the fundamentals... This is what a hypothetical independent president, hermetic to external influence and pressures would have done. But the real world being what it is, this unfortunately remains impossible, and it is unlikely that the public at large, particularly the youngest, will accept such a radical step backwards...

Some say the internal combustion engine running on “green” hydrogen is a realistic solution for racing. Is this what will save motorsport from the threat of electric totalitarianism in the long term? hard to say... 

Otherwise, synthetic oil may be a viable alternative to an eventual end of affordable oil... let's not forget that the main problem is not ecological (beware of greenwashing discourse), the real issue is the availability of cheap and competitively efficient energy.

Racing, A corrupt sport ?

  Motorsport is a complex and highly technical discipline, whose players are professionals in their respective fields (manufacturers, teams, suppliers, circuits, etc.). However, it has not always been managed as professionally as one would expect. Many sports have been better organized than motorsports precisely because of their simplicity. 

In motor sport, sometimes the management was borderline aberrant.

For example, do you know of a sport where it is the participants who vote or even sometimes impose the rules? blackmail participation if their rule requirements are not met? This is unfortunately a constant in motor sports. The reason ? it is more difficult to find participants in a car race than athletes for a meeting or football teams for a tournament. Because motor sports are expensive, complicated to manage, and involve a lot of technical constraints, whether for the organizers or the competitors. Bringing together a field for a race, especially since it is at a professional level, is always complicated. So to attract competitors, you sometimes have to make concessions, and often it is the balance of power that prevails at that moment. Hence regulations sometimes drawn up to suit the manufacturer which attracts the most the public or enters the most cars to fill a field which is fading, or to please new manufacturers in order to save a championship which is sinking into single-make monotony or suffers from the domination of a single competitor...

The beginning of Group C era. Almost a single make formula...

One of the most famous cases of participant influence in rule-making is that of the Concorde Agreements in F1. Without a majority vote, it was impossible to introduce major changes to the regulations. This was the culmination of a long standoff between FISA and FOCA, where F1 financial master Bernie Ecclestone, who defended the interests of the teams against the organizers, media and FISA (the sport wing of FIA at the time), played a central role and gave weight to FOCA thanks to his talents as an efficient businessman and outstanding negotiator.

It's hard to imagine this in a sport other than motor sport. The constraints are not the same.

It must be recognized that the participants in a motor competition, especially since it is highly mediatized, have some significant assets in their hands to influence the federations and organizers:

* Firstly the difficulty for the latter to find competitors and fill their starting grids in order to guarantee a minimum of spectacle and therefore return on investment, since motorsport is expensive, competitors do not jostle at the gate; the cost of the organization which depends on media coverage, and in fact relies on the notoriety of the participants.

It is true that this aspect is common to all sports, except that in motor sports the costs are out of proportion with other sports, and consequently the weight of the prestigious entrants weighs even more in the balance.

Beyond certain requirements, a boxer could be told "No thank you, you are too expensive" by an organizer. But a manufacturer would be more likely to see the organizer rewrite the regulations to accept or favor its own cars if it is in a position of strength and in particular to supply a substantial part of the starting grid with cars. The choice in terms of championships, including at world level, is also more open in motor sports for drivers, teams & manufacturers, whereas in football for example there is only one World Cup that all countries dream of to participate.

 * Another particularity, specific to motorsports, is the constant changing of the rules. New categories and disciplines are also being created while others are disappearing. It is a sport in constant evolution, unlike other sports that are almost frozen in time. This is explained by the very nature of the automobile industry and technology which by definition never stops evolving. The rules of sport linked to this industry can only follow this evolution, that goes without saying. This trivializes the rewriting of the rules, and doing so according to the interests of a particular specific competitor or competitors who align with the interests of the organizers is therefore predictable and understandable in certain cases.

But this unfortunately sometimes leads to extreme cases where participants were clearly favored by a federation or by the organizer, although sometimes there were only suspicions in this sense. Situations favored by the complexity of the rules which is specific to motorsport, the possibilities of their interpretation and the difficulty of their application.

When big interests are involved, including the interest of the federation in terms of spectacle and popularity, abuses are always possible.

A famous rear view of the Brabham BT46 Fan car. One race, one win ! The shortest successful career of a race car

There is no shortage of famous examples, particularly in Formula 1: the withdrawal of the Brabham BT46 fan-car by Bernie Ecclestone to prevent FOCA from breaking up; the repeated banning of the Lotus 88 in 1981 while the Brabham BT49 which had started the season by "interpreting" poorly written regulations had benefited from federal indulgence, to the point of becoming a trend; the controversial end of the 2021 Abu-Dhabi GP...

Other sports also experience controversies and suspicions of favoritism, even corruption, but the possibilities of playing on the subtleties of the rules and their complexity to bring about the desired result are infinitely more abundant in motor sports than elsewhere.

Top 16 North American street circuits

 There was a time when to attend a motorsport race, you generally had to go out of the city. Indeed, after the Second World War, the old streets circuits were gradually abandoned. Only a few isolated cases remained, such as Monaco, Pau, Montjuich and Macao.

In North America, the situation was a little different. As early as 1975, a promoter, Chris Pook, had the idea of transposing the concept of a Grand Prix in a city like Monaco in California. He therefore created the Long Beach Grand Prix. This was an exception in America for a while, until Americans understood the genius of this idea. What's better than reaching out to the audience instead of waiting for them to come to you? Sponsors only ask for that after all. Thus the fashion for American downtown circuits was launched, whether in IMSA which initiated the trend with the Miami circuit, in F1 again with Las Vegas, Detroit then Dallas or in Indy which replaced F1 in Long Beach streets.

North American streets circuits, however, had the drawback of offering very poor quality surfacing for cars that were increasingly dependent on grip and aerodynamics, as well as concrete walls and fences that were unsightly and hindered visibility, and tortuous and technically uninteresting layouts made mostly of straights, 90° turns, chicanes and hairpins. 

But despite this, the participants played the game with more or less good will (having understood the interest of the concept), with the exception of the F1 drivers, who were more demanding.

Many of these circuits undergo frequent modifications from one year to the next, some disappeared very quickly, others have been there for decades. 

Here is a ranking of those temporary race tracks that covers several periods up to the present day. It's not exhaustive though...

1 - Long beach (F1 70's)

2 - Phoenix (F1)

3 - Houston Streets 

4 - Baltimore

5 - Detroit (F1)

6 - Detroit Belle Isle

7 - Denver

8 - Long Beach (Indy)

Find Racing Tracks Collectibles and Gifts Here

9 - Toronto

10 - Miami (IMSA)

11 - St Petersburg ( 2003...)

12 - San Diego 1992

13 - Miami (F1)

14 - San Antonio (IMSA)

15 - Columbus (IMSA)

16 - Dallas Fair Park (F1)

They want to kill the drivers!

  One have to admit that Americans have managed to somehow preserve the soul of motorsport almost intact, unlike in Europe where the obsession with security and perfectionism which contaminates all aspects of daily life finds a favorite ground in motorsports, particularly on circuits.

Most of the American road race tracks have kept their original layouts, and have not been disfigured by multiple wide run-off areas beyond reason. We can even say that they have improved over time. 

VIRginia International Raceway - USA

  Security is not fully ignored there, however, we can say that it knows how to remain somehow "discreet" and "subtle". At some extent the USA has long been ahead of the rest of the world in terms of interventions in the event of accidents, precisely because there, the latter are much more frequent and above all more dangerous due to the nature of their competitions (ovals in particular) and the nature of their road circuits which have kept their vintage soul in terms of protecting the drivers (and the spectators also to a lesser extent).

But overall many of their road tracks do not pose a big safety problem, even remaining at the ancient level on this specific point, thanks to the advantage this country has in terms of space. Thus, North American circuits, particularly the lesser known and the most used by club and amateur races, benefit most often from "natural" side aisle (grass... or sand in arid locations) which make it possible to do without artificial tarmac run-off areas, and sometimes even allows to do without guardrails or concrete walls. When you go off the track there, almost no obstacle comes to stop you.

Buttonwillow raceway - Ca - USA

  However, there are cases of race tracks where this is not possible, and where these artificial obstacles have always been necessary.

Strangely, in many North American circuits the arrangement of these obstacles has not changed since the deadliest years (70s), in other words in half a century, to the defiance of the most basic safety.

The most obvious case remains the Watkins Glen circuit, although it has always been widely used by high-level competitions. And yet this track is known to have been the site of some of the most horrible accidents known. The most famous case is that of François Cevert, an F1 driver frighteningly and fatally mutilated by these famous sky-blue guardrails more than 50 years ago. Guardrails that are always in the same place, level with the track! An extremely fast track with a series of difficult curves, some of which even pass at full speed or almost.

François Cevert fatal crash at Watkins Glen - 1973 

 Watkins Glen and its typical sky blue guardrails and fences

 Americans apathy in the face of danger is probably a consequence of their oval racing where cars go at full speed, including in banking areas, a few inches from concrete walls.

Precisely, speaking of ovals, it is incredible to see that they are maintained as they are in the current era in defiance of the most basic safety considerations which have nevertheless become essential everywhere else in the world.

The explanation probably lies in the conservative Anglo-Saxon spirit which is good when it allows historic circuits to be preserved as they are (we know about the same phenomenon in the UK, Australia and Canada), but which can fall into irrational traditionalism in defiance of common sense.

The tradition of racing on ovals very rooted in the USA, its popularity above all which far exceeds all other forms of North American motor sports, the attraction of the US public for everything that is exciting and dangerous, amplified by the media escalation in this field (action movies, spectacular TV shows), the large ecosystem that revolves around NASCAR and Indy, perhaps even the violence inherent in American culture... all this makes it impossible to introduce major security changes without touching the soul of this type of racing and putting its existence in danger. The public would not tolerate it, much less those who profit from it.

A huge and spectacular NASCAR pile up

 So, to get around the problem, the developments in this area were made within the framework of the narrow margin of maneuver left to them, namely, without touching the basic constituent elements of these circuits which are their oval design and the walls level with the track.

Even if few admit it, crashes against the wall and huge pile-ups also remain a main attraction of races taking place on oval circuits. This is entirely consistent with another tradition in North American sports: that of very frequent interruptions during sporting events which serve the interests of sponsors, advertisers and therefore organizers and other players in this sport, including the average American spectator who finds there an opportunity to "refuel" (or "drain") himself just like his favorite drivers during these multiple pace-car interventions following accidents. Ultimately, everyone benefits. Safety, like everything else, comes second.

 So, to find a solution that would satisfy everyone, the compromise was to make these walls a little less lethal. By including deformable structures, doubling the rows of fences and constantly perfecting the materials and structures of these elements.

The highly publicized fatal accidents, including on street circuits also surrounded by concrete and solid fences, ended up forcing the promoters of Indy in particular to think a little more about the safety of the drivers at least, whose heads remained the most exposed element, which ended up leading to the adoption of the equivalent of the F1 Halo: the Aeroscreen, the Indy-style windshield.

The problem is that this remains insufficient despite everything. The accident at the 2023 Indianapolis 500 where a detached wheel following an impact was propelled into the spectator area is there to prove it. The fact that it landed on an unoccupied car in a parking lot behind the grandstands (!) is a chance that may not be repeated next time.

2023 Indianapolis 500  accident

Ideally, the problem should have been tackled head-on a long time ago, before oval racing became an indestructible tradition in the USA. Perhaps they should have gradually pushed the walls away from the track... until they ended up with an oval that would look more like the Hockenheim stadium? But what about Daytona and other ovals almost entirely in the form of banking?...

As much as the case of the ovals can be explained, that of Watkins Glen remains incomprehensible... moreover, the idea of double or triple rows of guardrails as protection is basically quite strange, not to say cynical.

 Watkins Glen

 This type of protection appeared slowly in racing during the 60s, starting with a single guardrail placed here and there, mainly to protect spectators or slow down cars in distress and prevent them from getting stuck in more solid and dangerous obstacles such as houses, posts, walls, large trees... or from falling into ravines or rivers and ports...

Before that, and also at the same time, bales of straw and piles of tires did the job (not forgetting the "prehistoric" wooden panels). They were of course insufficient and could even catch fire and constitute a fatal danger for the drivers. However, they had the advantage of flexibility, and therefore the capacity to absorb a good part of the shock energy, which means that to date, the most effective and least flammable of them has been kept, namely tire walls.

Tire walls play a key role in safety on circuits 

However, preventing the driver from crashing into the crowd or hitting a tree required a more robust system. Ironically, the solidity of the latter could itself be a danger for the driver, sometimes even more serious than the obstacle to be avoided. But in the absence of solutions, they found nothing better than doubling or tripling the armco barriers even where it was not necessarily advantageous. This has proven effective and safe on slow and twisty circuits, especially where the public and buildings are close. Monaco is the best example. The only driver to succumb to his injuries on this circuit (Lorenzo Bandini) was due to bales of straw which caught fire, fatally burning the driver.

On the other hand, elsewhere where this solution has quickly become widespread, notably on permanent circuits, the security of these devices should have been called into question many times. What would be the most to fear? that a driver decapitated, amputated or transfixed by guardrails, or that he ends up in the bush, embankment, hill or shrubs?

Often, the 2nd possibility was the least risky. In recent years we have had at least one very spectacular example of what this type of outdated system can inflict on a car and a driver, in the case of Grojean's accident at the Bahrain GP. If it wasn't for the halo, Romain would no longer be in this world today.

Romain Grosjean accident at Bahreïn Grand Prix

Unfortunately, despite the existence of complementary or alternative solutions to these controversial protections, they have rarely been called into question. In the USA the alternative adopted was to install concrete walls, often topped with fences. These walls are even worse in terms of shock absorption, but have the slight advantage of not mutilating the driver, and the fences which surmount the walls or the guardrails have the advantage of protecting the spectators, even distant ones, from debris, while posing little threat to the drivers.

In the end, which of the two “solutions” has the sad record of fatalities? difficult to say, but their presence on fast circuits near the track remains just as dangerous. When the space around the tarmac allows it, they can be moved away, but above all, there can... and MUST be rows of tires in front of these solid obstacles, sufficiently to absorb the shocks. "Tecpro" can also do the job, alone or together with tire walls.

Tyre walls on oval tracks

  We do not know to what extent this was possible AND necessary without having been attempted, but seeing a number of "old-fashioned" circuits still existing, it seems that efforts still need to be made. This may be a question of means... but between a few rows of old tires and an area of asphalt the size of a football stadium, there is no comparison in terms of costs. 

Sometimes gravel run-off areas do the job. Better than sand which has the disadvantage of raising dust which is then deposited on the track making grip precarious. 

All this is to avoid heavy impacts at the end of a straight line, but what about the rails parallel to the track, when moving them further apart poses a space problem? Wouldn't putting one or two rows of old tires, or "Tecpro" be safer?

The problem deserves to be taken more seriously, for some circuits at least...

A racing driver can't smoke... but can drink! (Preferably in a large cup)

  An important step in public health has been made since the ban on all cigarette advertising in several countries around the world, especially in industrialized countries. Unfortunatly, this ban also affected sport sponsorship at the time.

Cigarettes sponsorship were everywhere back in the 70s and 80s

We all know the weight that tobacco companies had in motor sports since the appearance of non automotive sponsorship in racing. This ban therefore raised fears of the worst for the future of these sports, but it arrived gradually, which gave the various players involved time to find other sources of financing. Thus, these bans did not start simultaneously in all the countries where automobile and motorcycle competitions were organized.

Niki Lauda's Marlboro McLaren hiding the name of its sponsor during the 1984 British F1 Grand Prix

In this regard, the generation of racing fans of the 80s are able to immediately recognize the photos taken during the West German or British GPs of the time just from the old Grand Prix images where precisely the names of the cigarette brands did not appear on the cars and around the circuit, and were instead replaced by designs recalling, with more or less cleverness and creativity, the logos of these tobacco companies.

In Germany, cigarettes sponsorship was already restricted as in GB, before all other countries. JPS Lotus and Marlboro McLaren at Hockenheim ( 1983 and 1985 )

Niki Lauda's BRM Pillow. 1973 German Grand Prix - Nürburgring

Unfortunately, in certain countries having ended up following the example of Western Germany or the UK, these laws and their application are so complicated given the multiplicity of scenarios they encompass, that they sometimes go so far as to require the media, including websites and Internet forums domiciled in their territories, to blur the logos of cigarette brands appearing in old photos. Pushing the censorship limit this far makes them fall into pure revisionism.

Can we imagine the old images of city streets where certain brands advertisings would be blurred or erased with an image editor? this is reminiscent of certain practices of totalitarian countries. How can we assimilate these documents whose value is purely historical to indirect advertising? According to this consideration, we should not show old videos or photos where we see people smoking!... But this is only one drift among others experienced by our modern societies sliding towards hygienism and ideological securitarianism, far from any common sense.

James Hunt being consistent with its sponsor image!

Where it becomes ironic is when we note the blatant contradiction between the attitude towards the sponsorship of tobacco companies in motor sports - which had nevertheless benefited from preferential treatment for a long period during which advertising for cigarettes was banned elsewhere - and the same sport's lenient attitude towards alcoholic beverages. Not only can the latter's logos still be displayed on cars and around circuits, but one of the most typical images in motor sports is precisely that of the tradition of champagne ceremony on podium.

This tradition, although not so old, is strangely linked to motor sports and is hardly found in any other sport except sailing, and a few new extreme sports.

But the most blatant contradiction remains the ban on the display of any brand of cigarettes in these sports while smoking drivers were quite common until the 90s at least, and are certainly so today among amateurs (Motorsport is a sport that smokes after all, at least for the moment :)), and it is ultimately, at least in its amateur form, not one of the sports where physical condition is essential as in athletics or any other sport. 

Keke Rosberg

Patrick Depailler

On the other hand, and this is where it becomes really funny and absurd, is that alcoholic drinks logos can be displayed not only during motorsports events, but in a manner as ostentatious as during the champagne ceremony on the podium. I guess what is the most dangerous? smoking while driving, or drinking and driving?...

Jochen Rindt

How then can we explain this double standard? Is the weight of the alcohol industry greater than that of cigarettes? Maybe, but that's definitely not the reason. Elsewhere, in NASCAR for example, this practice of mandatory alcoholic showers on the podium does not exist, while at the Indianapolis 500 the winner drinks milk, which is just as ridiculous. But at least, milk has never been linked to traffic accidents. Some racing series in the USA have just started to introduce alcohol shower ceremonies, probably by imitation.

And what about the introduction of this ritual in some karting races among categories where kids and teenagers race? 

Don't drink and drive ? seriously ?...

Can we consider this indirect and early incentive as consistent with the FIA's objectives in terms of road safety? can we be taken seriously when we thus associate in the unconscious of young people the passion for driving and the unbridled consumption of an alcoholic drink, while on these same kart circuits, the sale of these drinks is generally prohibited?

 A (Large) cup for the winner!

   Speaking of podiums, the cup has long been the classic reward for winners in various sports. Few wonder the reason for this choice. In fact - and this is where it is linked to the subject of this post - since ancient times, as part of parties celebrating victories, the need for cups made sense precisely for drinking. The bigger the cup, the better. And who deserves to celebrate success the most if not the winner, hence the size of the 1st's cup, always larger than that of his runners-up (with some exceptions :)

1987 German Grand Prix. The winner, Nelson Piquet here, is given the smallest cup ever.... (if anyone has an explanation, it will be welcome! )

 Anyway, Piquet took it very well with his usual sense of humour...

The cup in the past, was also useful for collecting as many rewards and gifts as possible, especially if it was large.

Over time, the tradition has remained but the meaning has been forgotten, it now has only symbolic value. Several champions do not burden themselves with this type of prize, which lost significance to their eyes. It is indeed difficult to tell at first glance under what circumstances this or that cup was given to them. Many like Niki Lauda got rid of them by giving them to friends for example. Others keep them in storage rooms in their attics or cellars.

Modern trophies are true pieces of art

Thankfully, there are creative and astute race organizers who started considering giving the winners something more meaningful than a common utensil with no connection to sports. Consequently, these individuals started requesting trophies that are both artistically valuable and evocative of the event from sculptors and other artists and craftsmen. These artists' inventiveness finally found a new platform to express itself, and the end products are stunningly beautiful original works with distinct personalities, much like what we see in Formula One and other elite competitions. Certainly not the sort of item a racing driver would get rid of.

It is also not necessary to work with an artist to design an exclusive trophy, since works of art around the theme of racing are legion, there is no shortage of choice in specialized shops. The most popular being the circuits layouts sculptures which are a hit in the automobilia world and on which a number of F1 Grand Prix, Moto GP, endurance and other major competition trophies are based.

 

British Grand Prix winner trophy