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 

 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.

  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 )

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

Proposal for a new points system - A fairer ranking

  We sometimes ask ourselves whether the driver titled at the end of the championship is necessarily the best of the season. The points allocation system in Formula 1 or other motorsport series is sometimes controversial. Does it really reward the best?

Often this system benefits the most regular competitors, the most economical with their efforts. Sometimes, changes are introduced to the points system to reward panache by eliminating the less good results. But in all cases, it often happens that we regret that penny wise calculations force competitors, especially towards the end of the season, to favor points over fighting for race victory, sometimes spoiling certain races. Or even by emphasizing team strategy - the infamous team orders - which spoile the race in the name of the championship.

There was a time when championships in car racing did not exist. Each race was important in its own right. Like the Dakar, or Le Mans or even Indianapolis in a more recent era. Rallies remained like this for a long time until the creation of the Manufacturers' World Championship, then the Drivers' World Cup in the 1970s and finally the Drivers' World Championship in 1979.

The Formula 1 world championship began in 1950, but the points systems whatever the racing categories are, ends up pushing competitors to sacrifice the race result for the benefit of the title at the end of the season, with an inevitable impact on the show. F1 experienced the worst illustrations of this case with the titles of Nelson Piquet in 1987 and Keke Rosberg in 1982. On the other hand, the obsession with winning the world crown spoiled memorable ends of seasons, as in 1989 and 1990 at the height of the Prost-Senna rivalry.

Therefore, why not consider a more exact alternative to create a more equitable classification in order to address these two issues (a points system that may not be fair or representative of the hierarchy of competitors and the sacrifice of the fight and show during the races for the benefit of the championship)? A ranking that would prioritize each individual race while not making up the season's ultimate goal. 

  Here's how the idea looks: Let's start with the points classification objective, the easiest to modify. It would be possible to establish a permanent ranking which does not stop at the end of a season, but runs from one season to the next linking them all in a common classification. Thus, we have a hierarchy which crosses several generations of competitors and encompasses them all, making the season championship less important than it is currently. 

On the other hand, to satisfy everyone, a secondary ranking, only taking into account the results of a season would award the driver/team with most points in a year, but without it having the same importance as today. 

  As for the 1st objective, namely a fairer points system representative of the merits of the competitors, there is a lot more work. Certain points must be taken into account.

1st consideration: Include in the hierarchy all those who finish races by awarding points to all drivers classified at the end of each GP.

The number of points to be awarded would not be fixed in advance, but would be determined by the number of cars having actually been classified. These points would therefore vary depending on the number of competitors having completed each race. To do this, let's start by giving a point starting from the last classified and we go up to 1st by adding 1 point to each position, then increasing the gaps as soon as we arrive at the podium, just to give more importance to the top three and even more to the winner.

In the case where, let's say, 15 cars finish a race, the points would be distributed as follows:

15th = 1 pt

14th = 2 pts

13th = 3 pts

12th = 4 pt

11th = 5 pts

10th = 6 pt

9th = 7 pt

8th = 8 pt

7th = 9 pt

6th = 10 pt

5th = 11 pt

4th = 12 pt

Then, the gap starts to increase when the podium is reached:

3rd = 15 pt (3 pts difference with 4th)

2nd = 20 pt (5 pts difference with 3rd)

1st = 30 pt (10 pts difference with 2nd)

Thus, with larger gaps on the podium, panache and victory remain valued. In addition, all those ranked are included in the points, making it possible to establish a hierarchy on merit, including among the last ones.

In the case of 20 cars finishing the race, the same can be done, while increasing the gaps by the same values when arriving at the podium, which will end up giving different points for the same places from a race to another depending on the number of finishers of a given race. This would be fairer than the current system since beating 19 competitors is not the same as winning against 5 or 10.

Certainly, this assessment is not the most accurate in absolute terms, since one may have more merit in winning a race against 5 competitors than against 20 depending on multiple factors. The value of a driver's result who wins by leading from start to finish against 19 drivers who finish behind him is somehow lower than that of a driver who moves up 5 positions by fighting for example to win against only 5 or 10 drivers at the end of the race.

  To make this ranking fairer, other points could be earned on other criteria. As for the places gained compared to the place on the starting grid. Again one point per position won. Of course, one could object that the positions gained are not always due to merit and that drivers often climb the ranking thanks to the problems of those who were ahead of them. But not having any technical problems and not making any mistakes unlike the competitors in front is also a sign of merit. Reliability should also be rewarded. The places gained in races would also more often push drivers to give their all for the benefit of the show even if their main goal is the title at the end of the year or the "cross-seasons" points classification.

To give this mode even more weight, it is possible to deduct points from competitors who lose places compared to their starting position.

  Finally, to award the title at the end of the year without finding ourselves in a situation similar to the 1982 or 1958 F1 seasons (the world champions of the time, Rosberg and Hawthorn had only won one GP during the season), why not setting a minimum number or percentage of Grand Prix to be won during the season to deserve the title regardless of the total points gathered?

The show must go on... at any cost !

   In an earlier post, we talked about how the FIA introduced some foreign elements to Formula One that were imported from the USA in order to increase the appeal of FIA competitions in general and Formula One in particular. We also saw how these attempts largely failed to meet their main goal, leading to the abandonment of  refueling, while the other imported element - the safety car - was extended to other racing series under the guise of security, though this justification is still up for debate.

The AMG F1 official Safety car

  As F1 remains the locomotive of motorsport in the world, on circuits in particular, with the exception of the USA, it is naturally the one which innovates in terms of new rules supposed to improve the show, due to media coverage and above all because of the decline in show quality in Formula 1.

This category, due to its advanced aerodynamic development, has in fact moved so far from production cars but also from other racing formulas that we can almost say that Grand Prix are almost airplanes racing on road. The result has been less adaptation to existing circuits and a chronic inability to offer enough real overtaking in racing as was the case in the past. Hence frequent complaints from spectators about races increasingly lacking in appeal and sometimes bordering on soporific.

As recalled in the previous article on refueling stops, the latter supposed to liven up the races had turned out to be the worst enemy of overtaking on the track. As F1 aerodynamics advanced, competitors who were too worried about the huge risks on their shoulders favored to gain positions by relying more on stopping strategies than on overtaking, which was riskier. Naturally, we began to regret the races of the past.

But let's see if these nostalgic regrets are justified.

 

Are the modern races really boring ?...

Evolution of racing:

 In its early days, car racing took place on open roads between towns. As with a cycling tour, spectators gathered on the sides of the roads, and admired a dangerous and exciting spectacle even if they only saw the cars pass by once, a bit like the rally today. Auto racing was a novelty, the automobile fascinated the crowds. 

As road races proved too dangerous and complicated to organize and control, one quickly came to the conclusion that it was better to organize them on closed circuits of varying length where the participants completed a few laps thus giving the spectators the opportunity to see them pass several times. With the help of time, the circuits have gradually become shorter even if many of them have long remained quite long compared to our modern standards.

 On the other side, the Americans, with their keen sense of show, began very early on by building permanent and very short circuits. They favored oval tracks with banked turns just to spice up the show. This type of circuits also existed in Europe (Brooklands, Monza, Montlhéry...) but were rarer, too long compared to their American counterparts. They were often a part of road tracks, and were rather the exception.

There were also oval tracks in Europe

  Still, the races were becoming more and more attractive to the public, which was not so demanding. In those days, for example, motorsport fans saw no problem in traveling tens or hundreds of km to attend a German GP on a 22 km circuit, which around fifteen cars covered only 14 times (not all of them, however, since reliability was uncertain at the time). People didn't just travel for the Grand Prix, it was also an opportunity to picnic with friends and families, a sort of bucolic weekend away from the city, and also an opportunity to see other races, to approach fascinating cars, and meet renowned drivers.

Nürburgring Nordschleife during an endurance race more than 50 years ago. 

Spectators could wait for several minutes before seeing the cars pass by.

 The races could well be monotonous without anyone noticing. Moreover, even on a contemporary circuit, overtaking is not guaranteed for those watching the race in the grandstands. A spectator does not have the opportunity to see the entire circuit, and outside of the ovals or some well designed tracks like Brands-Hatch and the old Interlagos, you have to rely on luck to hope that interesting maneuvers take place before your eyes. Fortunately, today the giant screens are there so you don't miss most of the action.

On the other hand, in the USA, overtaking was so abundant due to the configuration of the circuits, particularly the ovals, and in a sense also, due to the stock-car culture where one do not hesitate to be very agressive on the track, to the point that the public didn't give overtaking as much value. A bit like baskets in an NBA game. We see so many of them during a match that it no longer has the same value as goals scored in football.

Oval circuits are very common and popular in the USA

 Let's not forget the possibilities in terms of entertainment and leisure that were very limited in the past. We were far from the profusion of choices we have today in this area. Motorsport certainly benefits, like everything else, from the development of the media and the Internet, but it has much more to worry about these days to capture the attention of spectators, given the competition. The public, spoiled as never before, and limited in time, must be more selective. So, the slightest lackluster race is enough to put him off for a moment. Hence the constant efforts of the organizers to maintain interest.

 As demonstrated in the previous article, regarding the measures taken in F1 to compete with CART on satellite channels in the early 90s, these attempts were not always successful, far from it. As the situation becomes more complicated due to the increase in F1 performance and excessive development in aerodynamics, overtaking has become more and more complicated and rare. This led the FIA to imagine other solutions to facilitate these maneuvers and prevent the public from deserting.

Refueling strategies have become a fundamental feature of Grand Prix racing since for about two decades.

  But again, some rule changes remained ineffective, showing inconsistency probably due to a lack of courage. 

 Example: the ban on refueling was accompanied by an obligation to change tires. Not as was done later just as stupidly in certain lower formulas where competitors are forced to stop to fit any tires without this being technically and strategically justifiable, but by making compulsory the use of two different sets of tires during a race, which implies a compulsory stop. In short, an artifice which was in no way justified from a technical or sporting point of view and which wiped out the advantage of the ban on refueling. Once again, the races were decided on tire strategies to such an extent that the latter became excessively preponderant in influencing the progress and result of a race, putting all other parameters into the background.

The Mercedes F1 DRS system

 The other famous show booster, which also continues to this day, is the famous DRS. Inspired by an old Mercedes invention at Le Mans during the 1950s where the rear hood was used as an air brake to facilitate overtaking and braking especially at the end of the Hunaudières ( Mulsanne ) straight, thus preserving the brakes which were particularly solicited at the end of this long straight.

 This solution adapted to F1 in a reverse way (drag is exceptionally neutralized in a given straight to gain top speed and to allow aspiration before restoring downforce under braking) gives the advantage to the car behind when overtaking. 

What irritates the purist about these solutions is their artificiality in addition to being mandatory. In order to function, the system must be governed by a very precise rule (a precise DRS zone and a minimum distance from the car in front, etc.). In short, an absurd artifice, a sort of tinkering which kills the authentic art of overtaking and does not resolve the basic problem. At the end of the day, overtaking become too easy and above all predictable. The organizers probably think that whether it's activated by a button or occurs naturally, people want their fix of adrenaline.

The height of ridiculousness is reached by Formula E which has decided to make overtaking artificially easier while paradoxically this formula remains one of the most contested in motor racing. Between Fan-Boost and Attack Mode, we hesitate to award the prize for Fake and ridiculousness.

A Formula E following the mandatory line of an "Attack mode" 

 Elsewhere than in F1, even in the absence of overtaking problems, as in touring championships for example, there have been promoters to introduce new rules, just to push for closer fights, even more overtaking, and above all to avoid the same drivers and cars winning too often, or at least to make their task more difficult. Always the fear of seeing audiences and sponsors slip away elsewhere...

At the top of these findings, we have the weight penalties, and also the reversed grids (entirely, or for the first 10 only) based on the results of the previous round or the qualifications.

In rather amateur competitions, there are also sometimes compulsory stops which serve absolutely no technical purpose, except to make positions change artificially, and even stops where the driver must get out of his car, walk or run around it, before getting back behind the wheel (True!). 

Next step: a "massage stop" ? 

Motor racing, The most inclusive sport!

  Motor sport has often been accused of being discriminatory towards women, even misogynistic, elitist and excluding some social categories or ethnic "minorities", favoring the richest... In short, a retrograde and supremacist conservative right-wing sport ! um...well, according to some very loud politically correct groups at least.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's seen why... 

For example , where do you see mixed football or basketball teams, or even men's Hockey teams facing women's teams, or even mixed athletics competitions?

The unique Benetton sponsorship campaign when it bought the Toleman F1 team in 1985-1986

 In car racing there was basically no separation between sexes. From the beginning of automobile competitions, nothing prevented women from competing against men behind the wheel. It is only occasionally that specific categories, rankings, or races were, or still are, reserved for women. The basis being that as in horse riding or sailing, motorsport does not discriminate between sexes. This was especially true at a time when physical fitness did not play as important a role in driving as it does today. At least, muscular strength. Because when it comes to endurance, the difference between men and women is not so obvious.

Hellé Nice, a famous female racing driver from the 30s sitting on her Bugatti

 On another level, nothing prohibits a representative of a specific ethnic group or minority from participating in a race. On the other hand, it must be recognized that the only unequal point which still weighs down this sport remains the wallet (hence the lack of representation of nationals from certain countries or participants from disadvantaged classes where certain ethnic groups are a majority, for reasons that everyone knows). 

Willy T. Ribbs testing the 1985 Brabham BT54 F1 car

Motorsport being expensive by definition - it could not be otherwise - taking part in it and above all succeeding requires having comfortable finances not only to participate but also to be able to improve (training is just as necessary as in other sports, developing equipment too, and obviously this has a cost). It is understandable then that the richest are the most represented. Fortunately, the most motivated are not necessarily the most wealthy at the start, and it is always possible to get by on this side...

Lewis Hamilton, the first non-Caucasian world champion in motorsport History

 That said, in this article there will be no question of class warfare, of pleading to include even more "proletarians" in motorsport, nor of discrimination between men and women, grid girls ban from F1, or other quotas and fashionable discourses on what some like to call today "gender"...

Following the ban of grid girls from Formula 1, there is probably no chance such livery could be displayed on any modern F1 car 

  So, what this post will deal with is not diversity in motorsport among drivers or even among other racing staff (engineers, mechanics, team managers, etc.). Knowing that we are talking about AUTOMOBILE, we will take a look on the diversity of the first concerned, namely… the CARS! 

Yes, sorry for those who expected a militant speech on the chronic injustice of racing...

Diversity in motorsport:

  An aspect that does not look very professional at first sight, and which remains specific to motor sports, is the mixture of genres ( not genders! ) that we encounter on many starting grids. Particularly in amateur racing or major international level events, such as Le Mans and other endurance classics, as well as in Indianapolis at a certain time, and the F1 GPs of the 50s/60s, when F2s were sometimes racing alongside F1 cars despite the gap in performance, and of course in rallying, hill climbs and other competitions where racers do not compete directly against each other on track but against the clock.

If for the latter, this diversity is normal and presents no disadvantage, on the contrary, on closed circuits, it remains problematic in terms of safety, particularly on tracks as difficult as the Nürburgring Nordschleife or as fast as Le Mans, Daytona or Indianapolis.

  These heterogeneous grids can be explained in 3 ways: Either the circuit is too big (like the Nordschleife, Mount Panorama, La Sarthe or even Sebring) that presenting spectators with a grid of normal consistency risks boring them. On the other hand, particularly for endurance races, the primary concern is reliability. The pelotons are often decimated after several hours, which reduces the number of competitors who can go to the end, facing the risk of ending the race with no cars or at least without fight(s) for victory due to lack of competitors.

The multiplicity of categories therefore makes it possible to save the show if the overall classification is a foregone conclusion, or presents little - or no - interest at an early stage of the race, sometimes even from the start, due to lack of equal competitors.

 Generally, professional drivers are understanding and rarely complain about the presence of gentlemen drivers in major endurance races (except in the event of an accident caused by the latter, or excessive and dangerous interference on the track). Things have evolved in this direction to the point that a tradition which started long ago in the USA has become widespread in endurance throughout the world, consisting of providing PRO/AM categories for teams made up of a mix between pros & amateurs, the latter often being the sponsors or gentlemen drivers providing the budget, or even the owners of the cars and/or teams. This explains it all. We doubt that the pros would have been more tolerant if these amateurs were not also their "employers"...

  Finally, in certain old sprint races, particularly prestigious ones like the Grand Prix and the Indianapolis 500, the race would no longer have had as much interest in the eyes of the spectators without a minimum of competitors. So organizers were forced to accept in the past older cars, from occasional racers and gentlemen drivers, and even lower formula cars like the F2 alongside the F1. Which was not always a bad idea, especially on long circuits (like the Ring) where this did not pose a problem, or on selective tracks favoring driving (same, the "Ring") which could even result in a few surprises, such as F2 drivers being able to battle and finish in front of Formula 1 cars, although not the slowest ones.

Jacky Ickx driving a Matra Formula 2 car during the German Grand Prix. ( Nope! the wrecked touring car on the side of the track was not racing against F1s and F2s ! 😁 ) 

( Nürburgring Nordschleife )

 The same motivations (lack of sufficient competitors) were and remain the norm for many amateur and club races. Below a certain level of competition, a heterogeneous field is no longer a problem, diversity as well as numbers are rather welcomed. This may harm the credibility of the results for some, given the large differences in performance and the inequity between cars in the same grid. 

 But as motor sports are first and foremost machine sports, it is ultimately not illogical that the best car wins and not necessarily the best driver. Especially since between amateurs, it's ultimately not that important. The ego having little place at this level, often the important thing is to race.

A historic club race at Brands-Hatch ( GB )

The only problem, however, remains that sometimes, because of the performance gaps, it is often the same people who win. For the same reasons, the races are not that lively due to a lack of balance between competitors. But as this is not a generality, and as the spectators of this type of competition remain a minority of petrolheads who are not there mainly for the multiple overtaking and the close fights or for star racers, it remains acceptable.

Ultimately, machines are more tolerant than humans it seems... in any case, motorsport has no lessons to take from anyone on this point :)

Safety-car and Refueling. Poor imitation

1973 Canadian Grand Prix at Mosport. 1st Pace-car appearance in Formula 1

  The Safety Car appeared for the first time in F1 in 1973, during the Canadian Grand Prix at Mosport. At that time, the organization of the Grand Prix was not as rigorous and standardized as today, whether in terms of safety or otherwise. Each organizer did his own thing. Following an accident involving François Cevert, the "pace car", as it is called in North America, intervened by jumping in front of the second driver rather than the leader, disrupting the lap by lap and making the classification confusing, sowing doubt about the latter for a long time. The experience had scalded everyone.

Subsequently, we never saw a safety car neutralize a race again (outside America) until the early 1990s, while the 24 Hours of Le Mans had already been using the pace car since the 1930s, before adopting the safety-ar in 1981. It was only from 1993 that the Safety-car was officially introduced, first in F1 before becoming widespread in other non-American automobile disciplines.

1993 Brazilian Grand Prix at Interlagos. Laps under Safety car under rainy conditions

  On the other hand, Refueling has been commonplace in Grand Prix since the latter existed, except when it was not necessary during periods when, with small and less thirsty engines, shorter races and more resistant tires than modern slicks, teams saw no benefit in saving a few Kg of fuel between stops. The few seconds gained by lightening the F1 cars during each stint did not justify wasting a lot of time in the pits to refuel and change tires. Work on the cars was much slower then than it later became when refueling was reintroduced in 1982 by the Brabham engineer Gordon Murray. 

But with FISA's desire to control the escalation in power of turbo engines in F1 in the mid-1980s, the simplest and most effective solution to achieve this was to reduce consumption, which implied ban refueling, starting in 1984.

However, these two elements, the “Safety Car” and refueling, would return in F1 from 1993.

Refueling during a pre-war era Grabd Prix 

Getty images

Why did this happened?

- The context: 

  At the beginning of the 90s, after the ban on turbos, F1 experienced a major technological leap, first with the introduction of the semi-automatic transmission, then this accelerated with the active suspension (which allowed the Williams-Renault team to dominate the competition), synthetic fuels, fly-by-wire controls, traction control, four wheel steering... but these spectacular advances ended up harming the show. Only the richest teams could afford to develop these technologies, crushing other teams and making races more or less predictable. At the same time, it was the time when Eurosport channel began to broadcast the american CART championship by satellite, in Europe in particular, which allowed the European public to get an idea of the quality of the show on the other side of the the Atlantic and therefore could not help comparing it to F1.

Nigel Mansell switched from F1 to Indycar in 1993

  To drive the point home, following a season dominated by his Williams-Renault where he won the world champion title in the summer, Nigel Mansell was nevertheless unable to renew his contract with his boss Frank Williams under the conditions that he considered it consistent with his new status. Hurt in his self-esteem, he preferred to emigrate to the USA to race in Indy as several other ex-F1 drivers before him did with great success.

His thunderous and victorious debut in this championship in 1993 propelled the CART audience in Europe to a level threatening the popularity of Formula 1. It was at this moment that Bernie Ecclestone, then F1 big boss, sensed the danger and decided to act in collaboration with the new president of the FIA, his friend Max Mosley to counter the American offensive.

It was obvious that Indycar was a well-established spectacle and above all well mastered, and that F1, due to its cosmopolitan, open character and increasingly dependent on large automobile companies, willingly sacrificed spectacle and sporting balance in the name of victory at all costs and technological excellence of which F1 considered itself to be the supreme and exclusive showcase.

To match the INDY, if not surpass it in the eyes of F1 fans who were also gradually taking the path followed by Nigel Mansell, the FIA chose the simplest solution: Imitate CART.

Starting by banning all the latest technical innovations and driving aids (with the exception of the semi-automatic transmission which was very advantageous in terms of reliability, and therefore costs).

Then, it was the return to refueling banned since 1984, which were a spectacle in themselves in America, where they help to spice up the races and shake up the rankings to the delight of American spectators eager for Hollywood-style twists and turns. , however artificial it may be.

 Together with refuelling, another major innovation inspired by the USA was introduced: the safety-car, just like the American pace car.

These radical and hasty changes naturally required time to adapt. This was not without missteps, and sometimes even dramas (more or less serious accidents and fires in the pits during refueling and tire changes...), although the effect on the show could be felt, even if this was largely outweighed by several factors.

Dangers of refueling during race. Hockenheim 1994. German Grand Prix

  Indeed, these modifications had arrived at a time when a usually outsider team, Benetton, was beginning not only to seriously threaten the domination of Williams-Renault, but also to dominate the series, in part thanks to its extremely talented and ambitious driver, Michael Schumacher, to his engineers...and also thanks to a somewhat free interpretation of the regulations probably encouraged by the rather cavalier boss of this team, Flavio Briaore. A new era of domination was to be feared to the point that the FIA had to intervene on several occasions to put a spoke in the wheels of these new scarecrows in order, among other things, to maintain interest in the championship.

 Finally, over time, refueling and the safety car definitively became part of the customs of F1. But refueling had become so controlled that it made the races largely predictable, to the point that overtaking (if we can call it that) was done much more in the pits, namely during refueling stops and tire changes, than on the track. This often ends up giving rise to high speed processions, notably on certain circuits like Barcelona (which the teams know so well from running there during the off-season and during private tests, to the point that spanish or Catalunya Grand Prix are regulated like a routine flight plan with almost no risk taking on track or surprises).

F1 refueling Pit stops good for sponsors ?... really ? 

 Worse still, following a typically European and elitist trend of seeking absolute performance and perfectionism, pit stops in F1 had become so perfect to a point their duration was reduced to such an extent that the spectator could see nothing more than an ultra-fast and precise mechanical ballet, which repeated without improvisation or imponderables - with rare exceptions - ended up becoming commonplace.

 Part of the effect originally sought (spectacular and unpredictable refueling) was no longer there. The irony is that this ended up harming overtaking which became more rare. Almost everything now came down to stopping strategies. Strategies that are predictable and often known to everyone! Because in the era of easy access to information, thanks to new media and information technologies which provided Grand Prix commentators with a wealth of live detailed information on the racing strategies of each team, even before race starts, the public could no longer be surprised by unforeseen events. Spectators and commentators ended up wishisng each time that the rain would come and mingle with the show, just to spice it up and redistribute the cards. 

Praying for rain during a Grand Prix has become quite common

  In dry conditions, drivers talent became secondary, it was the entire team that decided the result. Certainly this has always been the case in motorsport, but in general, the work of the team was made before the race, whereas during it, it was on the shoulders of the driver that the race rested largely. That was at least the case for Grand Prix racing, unlike endurance, for example. 

The permanent radio contact ended up driving the point home to the point that the engineer can now dictate almost every action to the driver, leaving him little room for improvisation.

- Why didn't it work as planned?

In fact, in its desire to imitate CART, F1 tried to adapt American solutions to its sauce. This ended up giving the opposite result to that sought. If copying was necessary, it would have been better to do it intelligently. In Indy or NASCAR for example, the number of mechanics intervening during stops is limited, therefore the intervention is longer, giving rise to more possibilities of errors, hesitations and other unforeseen events in addition to making the pit stop visually telegenic. In F1, the camera can barely capture a piece of the car because there are so many mechanics around it! We also see the Indy or NASCAR driver making signs and talking to his team, communicating... in short, it's more interesting and more... human. Sometimes even funny... :)

Nothing as spectacular as NASCAR refueling stops !

Ultimately, these refuelings were banned from F1 again after less than two decades when it was realized that they had a large part of the responsibility for the poor spectacle that F1 had achieved. The official excuse was safety and cost... well costs in terms of spectators lost in favor of INDY probably...

For the safety car, then, the problem was not to copy the Americans badly, but rather to have copied them altogether.

In the USA, the conception of a sporting event is different from the rest of the world. Americans love interruptions during a game, and some of the specifically American sports are characterized by these very frequent pauses. We see it in Baseball, Ice Hockey, American Football... and also in car racing, especially in the most popular categories. Interruptions are an element of american culture and media, fundamentally motivated by an economic objective dear to uninhibited and aggressive capitalism: to be able to insert as many advertisements as possible and encourage spectators to consume beers and other popcorn and chips or coke cans during the neutralizations.

  As a result, the interventions of the pace car are a godsend for the sponsors and indirectly for the organizers and participants who recognize the merit of indirectly filling their bank accounts. The pace car also has a safety advantage, but specific to racing on ovals. 

Racing on an oval circuit is precisely a question of rhythm (hence "pace" in pace-car). The cars drive on ovals at a sustained and very fast pace. All just a few centimeters from a threatening concrete wall. Breaking this pace with simple yellow flags at the accident site would be dangerous. You do not brake on an oval without risking causing a pile-up because on this type of circuit you rarely and briefly touch the brakes, this requires great concentration and a lot of finesse and anticipation to avoid making any movement abrupt, especially since a turn passes quickly. This means that after an accident, it is out of question to simply slow down the accident zone with yellow flags. This would introduce a certain danger zone where cars would be forced to brake and then restart afterwards, thus introducing chaos into the rhythm of the field, especially given the lap times, and distances required for slowing down and restarting on such circuits (most of which are very short), the momentum will be broken for at least half of the lap disrupting the race in any case.

The inimitable NASCAR show !

  Finally, on an oval, there is practically no respite time allowing emergency services to intervene, the cars pass constantly given their often high number compared to the distance of the circuit, and because of the very short lap times, not to mention the fact that overtaking outside the yellow flag zone during intervention would be too dangerous since these overtaking maneuvers also require a preparation time and distance which can sometimes take an entire lap given the speeds reached and the short lenghts of the circuits. 

One of the 1st pace-car appearances in racing History

  So, the idea emerged of introducing the pace-car to contain the cars during the race, a pace-car which was already used for flying starts in Indianapolis, but for this time to dictate a regular rhythm to the entire peloton in the event of an accident and not only before the start during the warm-up or parade laps.

Afterwards, it was a matter of tradition that the pace car was extended to racing on American road circuits. But there was also another reason for this which had already proven itself...

 As luck would have it, it very quickly turned out that aggregating a stretched peloton was the best way to restart a long NASCAR or Indycar race which was getting bogged down in monotony and possibly break the dominance of certain competitors. This could only please a North American audience too accustomed to last-minute tricks and twists like in Hollywood films. The average American spectator has no problem with artifice (as in all areas of his daily life), as long as it gives him his dose of adrenaline, even if it is to the detriment of the credibility of a scenario or sporting fairness. The participants, for their part, have been used to it for generations and never think to question this situation, however unfair it may be, especially since it also has a significant economic advantage as specified above.

  Finally, the interests at stake in an American race are not as important as in an F1 GP, and the manufacturers are aware that this is part of the the game and that it pleases their public. Moreover, if no competitor dominates the others, precisely thanks to this system, then almost everyone can win one day or another. Perhaps they have also understood for a long time that winning all the time is not necessarily a good thing for a company's brand image. They are the kings of marketing after all...

- What about the European copy of the Pace car?

   As we have seen, the safety goal of this process is fully justified on an oval, and its extension to American road circuits was certainly a question of habit and the search for spectacle at all costs so dear to the Americans as well as a guarantee of additional money coming in which was very pleasing to the various sponsors and therefore to all those involved in these championships. 

 The argument of artifice in the service of show was probably the main motivation of Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA to save F1 from the monotony which threatened it at the time of the domination of Williams-Renault. But with the big industrial stakes in F1, this new measure was not popular among top teams, which did not prevent the most influential members of FOCA from accepting it reluctantly, also aware of the threats weighing on their sport which required a rapid reaction.

 The public also had difficulty accepting this change which distorted the sport in their eyes. The worst case scenario occurred when a race ended under a yellow flag. The spectators largely prefer the case of a race being stopped and amputated for example of its last 5 or 10 laps rather than seeing the latter accomplished behind the safety car, or to see the latter disappear before the last lap to restart a race which would be played entirely on a single lap or turn, perhaps distorting the result and possibly allowing the least deserving to win thanks to a daring overtake or an unfair hazard or strategy improvisation. We saw the controversy that such a situation caused at the end of the 2021 Formula 1 season in Abu-Dhabi.

One of the most controversial Safety car interventions in F1 at 2021 Abu Dhabi GP. It played a key role in the championship result that year.

  The worst was when the SC became generalized to other races with a shorter format. Imagine the frustration of a spectator who buys his ticket expensively and also travels hundreds of km to attend an FIA race lasting 20 or 30 minutes per round and who sees the last half (10 or 15 minutes) completely neutralized under safety car. Even worst: the same thing could be repeated in the 2nd round if the circuit lends itself too much to crashes and pile-ups like some city tracks, or in the event of capricious weather! 

Unfortunately, this has already happened several times, like in WTCC. We haven't seen anything more insulting to the public (apart from the 2005 Indianapolis F1 GP of course).

  The safety argument does not hold water on a road circuit, especially since the lap times are quite long and the pelotons are thin (as is most often the case in several championships to whom this imported process is imposed). In those cases emergency services can intervene in complete safety while being sufficiently protected by yellow flags. For more safety, officials could even show these flags 400 meters before the yellow flags zone and some 300m after for example to avoid the slightest risk. Strict respect for these flags should be sufficient.

 There remains the risk of lack of visibility in the event of rain, threatening marshals and drivers safety in yellow flag areas, like what caused the fatal accident of Jules Bianchi. It is clear that in such conditions, neither yellow flags nor even the safety car are sufficient. Interrupting the race immediately is the only thing to do, even if it means restarting it later.

  But as we know, considerations other than the participants and rescuers safety push some organizers to favor interests and firmly locked contracts (in the case of televised races).

  In other cases, such as when the safety car intervenes at the 24 Hours of Le Mans for a very localized accident while the circuit is more than 13 km long, this remains inexplicable if not purely a phenomenon of mimicry which is reinforced with time, or by the fear of being reproached for not having blindly applied this safety rule in the event of an unlikely serious accident occurring in the yellow flags zone... unless it is a pretext to restart a long soporific race. Fortunately, this is not systematically the case for the slightest accident occurring during another big endurance race, the 24 Hours of the Nürburgring! In that race at least, common sense is preserved despite the dangerousness of the track.

  The security argument to defend the safety-car is therefore rarely credible. Not surprising. As we have seen, the primary reason for its introduction was completely different... always the same... "Follow the money"!