LMAO, don't even pull that card. Racing is inherently dangeous, things happen. Once the element of danger is gone it's boring. Wait a second, weren't you the one complaining that the drivers should have gone out in the deluge for Japan qualifying while bemoaning how premadonna the F1 drivers these days are? Now taking the "safety first" stance. Good stuff.
Don't confuse my personal opinion with the arguments for/against tracks. I feel like you: they are being paid for the risk and should deal with it But the majority of the public/fans sees that differently I guess.
An argument as old as racing. Is fatal danger integral to the sporting exercise, or is it something that detracts from the sport and should be eliminated or at least minimized. I doubt that there's a right or wrong answer.
Some were financial failures from the get-go: Phoenix, Dallas, Vegas. However, Detroit and Long Beach failed because the sanctioning body of F1 at the time jacked the price up so high they could not compete, and few races CAN compete without gov't backing, just look at Canada - on a REAL track no less. I didn't see the Ratzenbeger incident, but with Senna, I thought that was ample runoff area, they just didn't have a tire wall, or sand/gravel to slow you down. They could have added 50 yards to that runoff area, I don't know if it would have changed anything, not at the angle he hit. I still maintain sand/gravel would have helped more..
Ratzenberger hit the wall head on too because there was no run off area They fixed Tamburrllo by castrating it. Not really good. Same thing happened to Hockenheim, Monza and Barcelona. Modern tracks have boring midspeed turns instead. Not good either. City tracks have 90 degree turns. Same difference
Monza is located in Europe. Us Europeans generally don't like watching a bunch of burger king enthusiasts driving around in circles. Americans won't go there because it'll be too expensive and lack of hamburgers.
Just the other day I watched a race from Imola(1990) and those drivers that day had to have large attachments to step into their racecars and go fast. And that's what it's all about. Going fast and providing a good race(1990 was). While the cars may have outgrown Imola(for obvious reasons), F1 has not. It's ok to go to a venue and JUST race. It's time we get back to what we watch F1 for, the race. Not where the parties are for the weekend, the amount of lights or sponsors you can fit on highrise hotel, what majestic seaway you can fit a track around, ease to another tourist city, or even where the money is. Last time I checked, none of those things provide better racing. And were proving that with every sh*tty ass track that is being built. If F1 provides good racing, I believe the money will follow. While Rome may provide a good scene for a race weekend, in my opinion, the race itself will suffer. It will be another Valencie(but with a better off the track vibe). Alex
Very good points, with many of the new tracks it seems that racing is not necessary, it is more about the 'artificial atmosphere" than any action on the track. We get to watch a parade of fast cars piloted by very talented drivers that cannot pass on tracks such as Bahrain, Barcelona, Valencia, Singapore and Abu Dhabi, while tracks like Spa, Monza, Montreal, Silverstone and Interlagos are always seem to be the next track to drop so we get more faux racing tracks. As long as they pay Bernies outrageous fees, it does not matter if the track design can only produce yet another snoozefest. Once the venue finds out they cannot make money like Valencia is going through now, there will be some other venue willing to lose money for the glory (however temporary). Lets see how many of these new tracks are still on the calendar in the next 10 years (Valencia is already trying to get out of their commitment and Turkey and China are dying on vine, with attendance fairly week in Bahrain and Abu Dhabi).
A lot of that is down to the aero on the cars and less to the tracks themselves. Barcelona is normally a parade because it is the favorite test track and the differences between the cars are smaller than normal. Valencia had an incredible race this year. Lots of passing and action. There is no such thing as a "faux racing track". Schumacher came within inches of death on the last "faux" race track. That death would have been anything but "faux". A LOT of that money goes back to the teams. They could ask Bernie for a smaller piece of the action if they were so concerned about the venues they race at. But they don't. As I pointed out below already, one of the most disdained tracks on here is Budapest and yet it has become one of the most traditional tracks by now. Don't tell me you're happy that Turkey is on its way out: This is one of the best modern tracks. Saw some of the best action and fighting this year. Weak attendance in Abu Dhabi? It was sold out.
But yet they still pass at Spa, Monza, Montreal, Silverstone and Interlagos. It has been a parade since 1991. I agree with you on both of these points, Budapest has been awful since its first race in 1986. Turkey will be sorely missed, but they could not get people to go to the race. 50,000 spectators, Montreal does that much and more at Friday practice.
Haven't been to Spa, but Monza, Silverstone and Interlagos were awful to visit. Montreal is a fantastic race and race weekend. It has been their testing track just as long. Budapest is a fantastic venue to attend in person as you can see the cars at several points of the stadium like track. I went to Turkey and enjoyed it tremendously. 50k spectators at much higher prices. By that logic the USGP was always a sensation with 100k spectators, but the lowest ticket prices of the year.
