They may have done but not publicly

His opinion has nothing to do with the FIA. Fortunately.

The FIA is against continuing on as normal? Why do you believe they want to do?

Can anyone explain me what is the point he made? I think I clearly understood his explanation on the nature of the corner and the run off area but he didn't propose any solution or did he? I cannot comprehend that bit

​@@twain1669in a nutshell his point is 'yes it's dangerous, but f1 is inherently dangerous and that's a big part of the thrill of both watching and taking part, therefore we need to accept the risks involved'.

It really is only a matter of time before a car gets t-boned in Jeddah, the only saving grace is that there’s never rain to lower the visibility

The difference between the eau rouge radillon complex and 130R is that there is gravel, grass and plenty of tarmac on the outside, and cars are nowhere near as likely to rebound back on track.

I think Jeddah is a great track but it's an accident waiting to happen. It's the race I'm most scared of each year.

As soon as I see the Jeddah track I said it was too dangerous. Way too hide speed with barriers that close. That will be the next track where a fatally unfortunately happens

@@Carpfishing4400 I honestly agree. And when it happens the FIA will be told. U were warned

so get rid of the halos then?

Not all of them do, though.

@@steviegbcool what does that have to do with this.

@@elizacevert4017 like he said risk is part of the sport no?

@@steviegbcool there’s an inherent risk to driving anything at 300kmh, that’s how physics works. The very least the FIA can do is try to make it as safe as possible. Unless you’re just a sadist and get off on seeing people die

If they could fix the problem of cars bouncing back on track then it wouldn’t be as dangerous and not dangerous to the once who don’t crash. Still I think he is right

@@thurbine2411 in theory this sounds great but it may also be too dangerous for the car that crashes to run off track at 300kph then hit a barrier that just stops them

@@seanwalsh5989 yes it shouldn’t just stop it but one would think it should be able to be designed to deform to lessen the impact without bouncing the car back.

@@thurbine2411 THe forces involved are absolutely huge. I don't think theres any material which could completely absorb the impact

Oh you are absolutely right that heavy cars are generally worse (more energy that needs to slow down safely.) The point about the weight of cars in the videos was mainly the more safety features added, the halo, stronger and more crash structures in the chassis do add weight to the car. Now that isn't to say we shouldn't make the cars safer obviously. But it means things like crash barriers have to be revamped and become stronger to handle the heavier cars at these higher speeds. Basically it's a trickle down effect. Eventually we can hope that material science will continue to advance so the car can get lighter.

nah dude . If it was Hamilton or Verstappen that died the track would be changed and more saftery brought in just like it was in Imola.

I think they need automatic warning systems in their cars if someone has an impact.

Yes but even with that, if the cars are not separated enough, an alert system doesn't help. And technically they already have it with race control to the teams. These drivers have such great reaction times that they are likely to avoid and accident before the system can be triggered

@@csmoran9 Not into blind corners,over crests or bad weather.

@@noduj "I think they need automatic warning systems in their cars if someone has an impact." That's what yellow flags are for.

They could introduce something similar to what the nurburgring is developing? Their smart camera system. Could potentially offer drivers a faster alert to an incident ahead. I'm not sure if that would be effective if all the cars are bunched up though

Removing SPA, Monza, Monaco or Silverstone would mean the ultimate loss of heritage and identity for formula 1. If they decide to kill these circuits from the calendar, they might just fake the rest of the season in a TV Studio to deliver another DTS Series, instead of polluting the environment for unnecessary races at even more unnecessary tracks.

Look at baku grojeans crash at a relatively safe part, that was just bad luck but that doesn't make that part of the track dangerous.

I think the issue with Spa is the lack of visibility due to the variation in height between Eau Rouge and Raidillon, making the exit of Raidillon blind. Coupled with the lack of runoffs that bounces cars back onto the track, you have severe crashes that multiply themselves.

There are multiple areas of improvement, in that case the collision would be avoided if the car hadn't got back on track after the shunt. Gravel traps were invented also to prevent this

@@hexgraphica Absolutely right, these things can be altered with zero change to the track. These sorts of improvements have been an ongoing part of F1, ever since safety became a focus point. If traps are utilized more, there would be little to no "bouncing back" onto the track. The side impact issue seems to be the last step that needs to be taken in the evolution of the cars now.

Top of Raidillon is still not sufficient as a run off. They should have fixed this as part of the changes by building a reinforcement structure at the bank. No excuse.

My initial point stands. T bone crash was the cause, irrelevant of the track.

@@ab8jeh But the crash didn't happen at the top of Raidillon, it happened 500 meters into the straight, and it would've happened regardless of the circuit

No he didn’t. Great article but that was not the message. Rewatch. You can tell that Martin’s opinion on safety features on cars has a duality to it. “ safety features give a false sense of security “ - “ safety features make cars heavier so they’re more dangerous when things go really wrong”… If anything he’s saying we need to do less, not more and that danger is what makes racing exciting, and has to be an accepted part of the sport.

@@Nutshell_Grammar he’s not saying we need to do less, he simply saying that we need to accept there will always be a risk.

How would you interpret his comments about how safety features make cars more dangerous? You also need to read up on what ‘If anything’ means ~ as I did not say he ‘is’ saying we should do less… I’m tentatively suggesting that to reinforce the statement I just made that he is not calling for more safety measures.

But spa seems to have a problem with it, cause it happens at spa more than most. The easiest solution is extend the barrier at the top back and add a gravel trap so cars aren't redirected onto the track and they get slowed down so they don't go as far.

You cannot do that because of the physical nature of Eau Rouge. You can have tracks that are totally flat and have acres of runoff...track like that are totally boring. Still get t-boned on a flat track with 10 miles of run off though.

Can't change the typology of the land. Here my solution. I think it's genius and would work flawlessly. One of brundle's points is to slow the cars down. This would help, but not in wet weather. My solution helps with both. Repave with zoab It's porous, drains water away much faster. It's used on Netherlands motorways. It's less grippy, so drivers would have to lift off in order to make the corner, and it eliminates spray at the same time. The corner will still be dangerous but at least a car stopped on track would be visible.

@@XenonArcher that would actually make it more dangerous tbh. Nice thought though.

@@Brendan77able how? Less grip? I'm sure drivers who's job it is to learn the levels of grip will manage. It's not that much of a difference. Not like Netherlands motorways feel like you're driving on glass lol. And again, there wouldn't be any standing water on the actual surface. Would be far less dangerous than traditional tarmac. Especially new stuff as water sits on top of newly paved tarmac much more so than older tarmac

So what’s your point, he’s obviously correct it needs a hairpin in front of it.

​​@@sethtenrecthat was never his point? Watch it again. His point is that it's dangerous, but that's one of the main aspects of racing. There are many, many dangerous jobs in the world. Why is F1 any different

@@XenonArcher I think his point is formula one needs to be made safer. There’s no reason for people to die for our amusement. Think about Jim Clark and Mark Donahue etc… that era when people were dying right and left in race cars . They’ve made quite a few improvements. It’s just time to make a few more now..

@@XenonArcher here’s another thought, just this past weekend it could’ve been Max Verstappen in qualifying, if he gotten killed, there would’ve been more of an uproar about that horrible “flat out with no vision” part of the track. Max almost lost it there.

@@sethtenrec did you watch the video? He's highlighting the danger, yes. But also highlighting the fact that racing drivers risk their lives every time they get in the car and that they accept that. Being scared means you can't race to your full potential.

There are plenty of straights like that especially street circuits so it's something you are never going to avoid and especially now that F1 are going to more street circuits. All it takes is someone to lose the car at swimming pool in Monaco and cars coming around the corner not knowing what's on the other side and it's a massive bottle neck leading to a massive crash.

He lost it at radillon

The incident was caused from racing in terrible conditions, not because the straight is too unsafe. As above, many many straights around the world are similar, and you would bounce back on the track if you crashed there. But people rarely do, and they aren't racing in such poor visibility conditions that would cause a horrible accident

It cannot be widened, that is the problem. The topography is difficult as mentioned and the circuit simply doesn't own the land to make those massive changes even if they wanted to. If you want to make it safer a chicane somewhere between La Source and the bottom of the hill is the answer. Maybe only used when it is wet - but obvs that brings up a whole load more issues. It's probably just something that has to be accepted. But it's time and place within the F1 circus is probably limited anyway. Will we see it beyond it's current contract? Perhaps not.

@@Pricelessmile It's a combination isn't it though. It's almost always wet there. You don't see people killed on any other part of the track. So yes the conditions are an issue, but you could also say that they are pretty much an intrinsic part of the sector/circuit. Also it wasn't the straight. The accident unfolded there but it would never have happened if it wasn't for the nature of the corner before it.

It has no relevance other than for your morbid obsession on the topic...

You are completely off topic sir, they raced there for their own joy, career and job. Stop faking wrong topics and misinterpreting long gone events. Leave this fake drama thing to the authors of DTS. F1 is racing and motorsport and not just another reality tv show with cars as a side topic.

​@@SH-gd2vs, I am not off topic. There is talk of changing this complex of curves. As Martin says they make up an exciting, challenging and fast section of track that make F1 so brilliant AND dangerous. Otherwise why would we do it? Eau Rouge into Raidilion, like Monaco, like Ferrari is historic and intrinsic to Formula One. The long list of drivers killed on this section of track is sad and they should not be forgotten. I salute Charles and Pierre flying through this section of track because I find it hard to imagine they would not feel emotion driving through there. Anthoine Hubert was a great loss to the sport and especially for them as he was a close friend and rival of theirs. Personally as a fan of the sport, my character is to be emotionally involved. Am I alone? I remember Stefan Bellof who didn't survive his crash at Raidilion in 1995. Every time we are at Monza I remember Rindt (1970) at the Parabolica. San Marino, I remember connect Rivazza with Roland Ratzenberger and the Tamburello with Ayrton Senna, both of them tragically dying there in 1994. ​ @SH-gd2vs , I cannot stand fake drama. Fake drama is in WWF Smackdown. Netflix and KZfaq has turned F1 into a reality show and whether we like it or not we have been sucked in.

Their friend will be proud, that was their life. I ve been to the Senna memorial in Spa this week and got emotional again but he knew the danger and never backed down because that s racing, being scared is losing all the time

courage? This was the least ballsy "statement" I've ever seen, he hardly even said anything

Stick to the internet

a corner is only dangerous if a driver makes it dangerous🤣eau rouge and raidllion is taken at like 300 kph, it is bloody dangerous no matter who is driving. The only solution is to widen the run off area. It really is that simple. Knock down the grandstand and widen the run off on the left. Otherwise Spa is in danger of being removed from the calendar

"only dangerous if the driver makes it dangerous" away back to your Weetabix

"A corner is only dangerous if the driver makes it dangerous" - Very illinformed and disrespectful comment.

​@@Tom-wr6mq Every streetcourse on the f1 calendar is more dangerous than Spa, we just don't see that many crashes, because these events are only once a year.

but with motorsports its a thing that can't be predicted...especially if its caused by external factors i.e tyre blowouts

Then you are absolutely wrong. That's what makes them the heroes they are. Just like firefighters or any other high-risk job. Without the danger they lose their allure. As Martin says. If you aren't prepared for the risk then walk away.

Ok then how do you completely eliminate the possibility of death in Motorsport? No one is saying it’s an acceptable outcome, but it’s a very real possibility given the nature of the sport.

So true

On Van't Hoffs accident there was 15 seconds from the first car spinning until the deadly crash. They could have called a SC in that time easily. At least F1 drivers have that signal on the dashboard and could lower the speed.

@@manuelgogeissl Jules Bianchi, Suzuka, double yellow didn't stop him, unfortunately. That's the nature of the sport, it's dangerous.

@@GhtPTR A SC is way more drastic than a double yellow. You have to reduce into a delta and will definitely get a serious penalty if you just go full speed after SC is deployed. Back then a double yellow only meant to reduce speed (a short lift is enough) and was probably compared to your last lap. When in the lap before you had less rain you will be slower anyway and say to yourself "then I can go as fast as I can, I will be slower anyway and get no penalty". Probably that is what happened as there the rain was increasing. Also you had that vehicle on the track which he only hit with 150kmh. Otherwise the crash would have been harmless when there was no crane on the track.

It's the wall on the left that was the issue, and it was pushed back and straightened in 2022. Hubert hit the tires on the right and then got clobbered by another car because they were avoiding a car that went off to the left and came back into the racing line, so everyone was taking evasive action.

Anthoine also had a massive hit into the tire barrier immediately before he got t-boned, so it was a secondary impact at the most vulnerable part of the crash structure. There was really no way to make the car much safer in those circumstances without greatly transforming the design of the car.

Anthoine was hit in the runoff, but JMC went wide there to avoid the original crash. Dilano was hit much further up the straight.

Easier said than done. The bedrock is almost to surface. There is effectively no absorption into the ground, the result is streams flowing which then cross the circuit multiple times.

'94 was a massive over reaction, but I am concerned that some of the newer breed of drivers want that kind of action everywhere as they lack courage.

They can't. There are forests that are protected. That area also suffers from heavy rainfall. Ever watched that film where people build a giant dirt mound on top of a big hill just to get it classed as a mountain? Yeah, the mound got washed away by rain. These things aren't that possible my dude. What would help is repaving the track with porous tarmac like zoab. It offers less grip, which would slow the cars down, and also eliminates spray