Suzuka: dangerous?

[woody2goody]

After Glock's accident, Rubens Barrichello has claimed that Suzuka is 'dangerous' due to the lack of run off areas.

To me there is no problem, and I think with massive run-off areas, Suzuka wouldn't have gained it's reputation as one of the best and most technically challenging circuits in the world.

I never want to wish any danger on any drivers, but it is quite refreshing to see some drivers going off and making mistakes, because when they go to Bahrain (great circuit as it is), nobody ever gets punished for their mistakes.

Glad to see Timo is ok, I fell asleep and missed Q2. I think sometimes that the drivers are too used to tracks where they can get away with almost anything. That's why people crash at Monaco, because it's so different to what they're used to.

[ShiftingGears]

Obviously its challenging, but it's not unreasonably dangerous. Maybe Rubens would be happier driving around a car park in a kart instead, if he thinks it's too dangerous.

Suzuka is fine.

[Valve Bounce]

.........and this is just from my own observation at the time. The fact is that the cars were not slowed at all in the runoff areas; and had these areas been asphalt instead of aggregate, the cars would have stopped under braking in that distance.

I have advocated that these runoff areas could be asphalt, as long as the exit from these areas would require the cars to return to where they entered the runoffs instead of getting an advantage by continuing on. At least, this way the cars wouldn't be wrecked running into the barriers at unabated speed.

[pino]

Suzuka is fine.

I totally agree, hands off Sukuka :hmph:

[woody2goody]

.........and this is just from my own observation at the time. The fact is that the cars were not slowed at all in the runoff areas; and had these areas been asphalt instead of aggregate, the cars would have stopped under braking in that distance.

I have advocated that these runoff areas could be asphalt, as long as the exit from these areas would require the cars to return to where they entered the runoffs instead of getting an advantage by continuing on. At least, this way the cars wouldn't be wrecked running into the barriers at unabated speed.

It's just that asphalt runoffs give the drivers too many chances. It could be the difference between winning the race and retiring from the race.

[AndyL]

It's just that asphalt runoffs give the drivers too many chances. It could be the difference between winning the race and retiring from the race.

Plus they're more dangerous for other forms of racing - especially motorcycles, which Suzuka's owners have a certain interest in.

[jens]

Great to see a modern Grand Prix circuit being quite a challenge for race drivers, forcing them into mistakes. :up:

[Marbles]

It's just that asphalt runoffs give the drivers too many chances.

These asphalt runoffs on reducing radius corners can an actually be an advantage to a driver who has run wide, allowing him to keep his foot planted as opposed to the driver who has stayed on the track and has to brake harder and get on the throttle later. First corner Spa, one of the final corners Fuji and a few others come to mind.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Three very large accidents. No serious injuries. Yet again, F1 proves itself to be extremely safe.

[gloomyDAY]

Dangerous? Sure. Suzuka is very unique.

Fast sweeping curves & none of those cookie cutter run-offs. The track is just challenging, but I don't think it is dangerous to the point of making any irrational changes (oh crap, I just jinxed it!).


Three very large accidents. No serious injuries. Yet again, F1 proves itself to be extremely safe.Don't be complacent.

[wedge]

Run off area insufficient at Degner Curves, especially at Degner 2. Asphalt would've done little because you go wide and ride buckaroo between the kerb/grass-crete aiming straight into the tyre wall - beyond that is the banking that holds the backstraight/crossover.

[Garry Walker]

What a girl Rubens is. Most of the drivers have been so spoilt that they cant handle real tracks anymore. Thats how racing is supposed to be - if you make a mistake, you lose time or you crash. Not so that you actually gain time by making a mistake or lose nothing. This what separates the men from the boys. Those who have the guts and skills, will still push hard and shine. Those who dont, will look like Kovalainen.

If Rubens wants real danger, I would gladly show him some of the stages of rallies I have taken part in, where you have very fast stages, surronded by trees, going at almost 100 mph at some places with no notes in the dark in cars that in safety level are complete jokes, yet still pushing 100%. I had no problem with that and I wasnt getting paid anything.

Coward.

[Shifter]

It could just be him getting older. He's raced there, what 13 times before, has he always said this or is this a new stance?

BTW, I think the Dunlop curve is actually the most dangerous. If a car came out of the esses and just put a wheel off resulting in snap oversteer, followed by an instinctive correction and car could concievably go straight into the wall at 140+. The wall there is close because of the necessary runoff room for 130R on the other side.

[truefan72]

.........and this is just from my own observation at the time. The fact is that the cars were not slowed at all in the runoff areas; and had these areas been asphalt instead of aggregate, the cars would have stopped under braking in that distance.

I have advocated that these runoff areas could be asphalt, as long as the exit from these areas would require the cars to return to where they entered the runoffs instead of getting an advantage by continuing on. At least, this way the cars wouldn't be wrecked running into the barriers at unabated speed.

I'm not sure how much slower these cars could have gone in those run off areas. You have to factor in the point of the incident.

For Glock, it was at a critical point where a car is not expected to go head on and he is not at full speed at that point anyway. The track did its job, he got out with minor scratches to the leg and that that

for Buemi and Kovy at that turn they both made mistakes and were on the kerbs and lost it, and both guys are fine.

the second buemi incident was clearly a driver error and there is no track in this world that would have prevented such an impact.

No tracks are 100% safe and run off areas cannot be implemented everywhere.

If you get it wrong in eua rouge your toast,
If you get it wrong exiting parabolica you hit the barrier
if you get it wrong anywhere in australia....well you get the point

That's why these guys are good

Suzuka is fine

[Steve2009]

In a post race interview R.Brawn said that he thought that the numerous accidents were due to teams trying to dial in a little extra oversteer.
Dont have a link though :(

[keysersoze]

My head says put me in the seemingly small category of fans who advocate extremely large run-off areas with rows of tires. My heart likes to recall watching exciting street tracks like Monaco, Long Beach, and Detroit. Seeing the Jeff Krosnoff accident made me start to feel uneasy my affinity for them. Oval tracks are a REAL mixed emotion--exciting races, sure, but then you think about Alex Zanardi and Greg Moore accidents.

The perfect world is a track with no walls but I know that's quite difficult if not impossible, not to mention boring. On the other hand, I don't like seeing cars get completely wadded up and I sure as heck don't like seeing cars hit things without scrubbing off a significant amount of speed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Far be it for me to call an f1 driver a chicken when I cant drive one of those cars BUT Rubens should shut up. He raced there 13 times previous, and didn't mind Suzuka. RAcing is supposed to be hard......it is one of the few f1 tracks I tune in to watch a GP on.

[BeansBeansBeans]

The perfect world is a track with no walls but I know that's quite difficult if not impossible, not to mention boring.

That's the same dichotomy many racing fans face, including myself.

Whilst not wanting to see drivers maimed or killed, one recognises that danger (ie - the threat of death or injury) is part of what makes the sport exciting. You can draw parallells with tight-rope walking. Walking the wire between the twin towers or across Niagara Falls is challenging for the acrobat and thrilling for the spectator. Walking the wire a foot off the ground over rubber mats is less so in both senses, even though the physical skills required are the same.

Of course by saying this, I'll be labelled bloodythirsty or an idiot who wants to sit on a sofa watching other men risk their lives, and I can understand that viewpoint, but it doesn't change how I feel and I know I won't be alone on here.

It is common sense to want to make the sport 100% totally safe, but at the same time, the closer we get to that holy grail, the more the sport loses it's lustre.

[Valve Bounce]

I'm not sure how much slower these cars could have gone in those run off areas. You have to factor in the point of the incident.

For Glock, it was at a critical point where a car is not expected to go head on and he is not at full speed at that point anyway. The track did its job, he got out with minor scratches to the leg and that that

for Buemi and Kovy at that turn they both made mistakes and were on the kerbs and lost it, and both guys are fine.

the second buemi incident was clearly a driver error and there is no track in this world that would have prevented such an impact.

No tracks are 100% safe and run off areas cannot be implemented everywhere.

If you get it wrong in eua rouge your toast,
If you get it wrong exiting parabolica you hit the barrier
if you get it wrong anywhere in australia....well you get the point

That's why these guys are good

Suzuka is fine

It seemed to me that the gravel traps didn't slow the cars as much here as those at other tracks. I think that if the surface was asphalt, the cars could have braked in that distance and come to a halt.

[LessThanSte]

They've ruined spa with runoff areas, they best not do the same with Suzuka.

Drivers need to realise that they cant use astroturf, and should therefore stay within the white lines.

Valve, what you are suggesting is probably correct but also ruins the entire racing spectacle. If a driver makes a mistake at present its race over. Therefore, the onus is on the drivers NOT to make a mistake. Its perfectly possible to get round the track without crashing.

What is really annoying is that we have been coming to Suzuka for years and not had crashes like this, when the cars were going faster. Of course theres the odd crash here and there but thats the same as any track. A knee-jerk reaction to these crashes is precisely what is not needed and they should be taken in the overall context.

Anyway, 1 of the crashes was due to the car bottoming out, 2 were due to hitting the kerb (drivers own fault), 1 due to losing the car before the kerb and the other 2 because drivers tried to be too cheeky and use the astroturf on the exit (which is NOT there as a piece of useable racetrack, more as deterent!)

They need to do something similar to Monza. Put 4 wheels off the track and onto the astroturf more than 3 times in the race and have a drive thru penalty for your troubles!

[Nikki Katz]

I think that as modern F1 circuits go that it is dangerous, but it's probably not unreasonably dangerous for the cars that go around there now. Glock had a head-on accident at high speed and was pretty much ok - there will always be an element of danger in F1 and it's not like it's the only circuit that's a bit scary on the calendar. Taking Kubica's crash, that could have been a lot nastier, and could have happened at quite a lot of other circuits.

[Saint Devote]

Great to see a modern Grand Prix circuit being quite a challenge for race drivers, forcing them into mistakes. :up:

You have just revealed the crux of the matter - drivers have to have respect for this circuit because these days they can almost do what they want and there is no penalty.

[Saint Devote]

That's the same dichotomy many racing fans face, including myself.

Whilst not wanting to see drivers maimed or killed, one recognises that danger (ie - the threat of death or injury) is part of what makes the sport exciting. You can draw parallells with tight-rope walking. Walking the wire between the twin towers or across Niagara Falls is challenging for the acrobat and thrilling for the spectator. Walking the wire a foot off the ground over rubber mats is less so in both senses, even though the physical skills required are the same.

Of course by saying this, I'll be labelled bloodythirsty or an idiot who wants to sit on a sofa watching other men risk their lives, and I can understand that viewpoint, but it doesn't change how I feel and I know I won't be alone on here.

It is common sense to want to make the sport 100% totally safe, but at the same time, the closer we get to that holy grail, the more the sport loses it's lustre.

Anyone that considers the danger as such should rather not drive. In reality it should not form part of any driver's figuring - that it is dangerous is simply irrelevant.

The question is whether they want to drive a racing car or not.

[ShiftingGears]

Great to see a modern Grand Prix circuit being quite a challenge for race drivers, forcing them into mistakes. :up:

Bingo.

[F1boat]

Yes, no need to "pussify" everything.

[ArrowsFA1]

Suzuka leaves less of a margin for error than the (as described by Martin Brundle) "supermarket car parks" that have been built in recent years. That doesn't mean it is dangerous.

[woody2goody]

They've ruined spa with runoff areas, they best not do the same with Suzuka.

Exactly. Why the hell is there a need for a runoff area at La Source at Spa? A 40 mph hairpin??

If there was no runoff like there should be, Fisi would have won the Belgian GP. People can take too many liberties with these asphalt runoffs.

[UltimateDanGTR]

Suzuka leaves less of a margin for error than the (as described by Martin Brundle) "supermarket car parks" that have been built in recent years. That doesn't mean it is dangerous.

and indeed like 'twas said, go off the track in bahrain and you end up in kuwait........

but suzuka is a mans circuit. and that's what makes it great-'no pussy's here mate' should be the message.

and to me, it is not even that dangerous, and the crashes this weekend were a matter of circumstance not circuit, difference is they ended up in the barriers, which are very safe nowadays, instead of in 'no mans land'

dont get me wrong, safety is important, but there is nothing to me which suggests suzuka is dangerous.

[wedge]

Exactly. Why the hell is there a need for a runoff area at La Source at Spa? A 40 mph hairpin??

If there was no runoff like there should be, Fisi would have won the Belgian GP. People can take too many liberties with these asphalt runoffs.

I'm afraid to say its because Spa is no longer temporary circuit/road race.

[Mjfan12]

.........and this is just from my own observation at the time. The fact is that the cars were not slowed at all in the runoff areas; and had these areas been asphalt instead of aggregate, the cars would have stopped under braking in that distance.

I have advocated that these runoff areas could be asphalt, as long as the exit from these areas would require the cars to return to where they entered the runoffs instead of getting an advantage by continuing on. At least, this way the cars wouldn't be wrecked running into the barriers at unabated speed.

suzuka cant have asphalt because they have the 24 hour bike race. bikes need the gravel since the riders need it to slow them. otherwise they may slide into the barriers.


they still do the superbikes, but motogp left after a rider died there in 03.

[call_me_andrew]

Oval tracks are a REAL mixed emotion--exciting races, sure, but then you think about Alex Zanardi and Greg Moore accidents.

The perfect world is a track with no walls but I know that's quite difficult if not impossible, not to mention boring. On the other hand, I don't like seeing cars get completely wadded up and I sure as heck don't like seeing cars hit things without scrubbing off a significant amount of speed.

No, the perfect world is a track with no run-off, but the walls don't hurt.

And how do you blame Zanardi's accident on being at an oval? Zanardi spun out of the pits and was at a 90 degree angle to oncomming traffic. Imagine if a car leaving the pits at Monza has a wheel come off and pulls hard left into traffic.

I think the tire barrier made the Alguersuari crash worse. Those barriers are great for head-on collisions, but if you hit it from the side while still rolling forward, it'll force you into a flat spin.

[Valve Bounce]

suzuka cant have asphalt because they have the 24 hour bike race. bikes need the gravel since the riders need it to slow them. otherwise they may slide into the barriers.


they still do the superbikes, but motogp left after a rider died there in 03.

Easily solved. You sweep the aggregate from the runoff area for cars, and replace the aggregate when the bikes race. It would take only a matter of hours to effect the change.

[bravefish]

Easily solved. You sweep the aggregate from the runoff area for cars, and replace the aggregate when the bikes race. It would take only a matter of hours to effect the change.

Mate the speed at which those Japanese marshalls move it would take minutes not hours

They even look worried fast

[AndyL]

Easily solved. You sweep the aggregate from the runoff area for cars, and replace the aggregate when the bikes race. It would take only a matter of hours to effect the change.

:confused:
You must have seen how deep gravel traps are? They need to be - a thin layer of shingle on top of a hard surface is just about the slipperiest surface this side of sheet ice. A good-sized gravel trap will contain hundreds of tons of gravel.


Mate the speed at which those Japanese marshalls move it would take minutes not hours

They even look worried fast

:D

[ArrowsFA1]

Q. We saw this weekend quite a few big accidents, mainly from rookies. Some drivers complain that this is a bit of a dangerous circuit. What do you think?
KR: I think it is a dangerous sport. This is more a kind of old-style circuit. The new circuits have a lot of run-off with asphalt, so it makes no difference if you make a mistake, you can usually get back on the circuit. Here, if you make a mistake you are usually going to hit the wall and I think that is how it should be. You get punished for the mistakes and it makes it more exciting, and I think you need to be more precise.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/79285

[keysersoze]

And how do you blame Zanardi's accident on being at an oval? Zanardi spun out of the pits and was at a 90 degree angle to oncomming traffic. Imagine if a car leaving the pits at Monza has a wheel come off and pulls hard left into traffic.

Scott Brayton, Jovy Marcelo, Sam Schmidt, Davey Hamilton, Mark Dismore, Tony Renna, Gordon Smiley, Nelson Piquet, Bruno Junquiera, Vitor Meira, Kenny Brack, Ryan Briscoe, Stan Fox, Mark Blundell--all of these drivers hit something on an oval and suffered a significant injury, a career-threatening injury, a career-ending injury, or death. And I made sure to only include the last 25 years. These are the ones I can recall from memory, and I only mentioned CART, Champcar, or Indycar--not Indy Lights.

Better?

[I am evil Homer]

Exactly. Why the hell is there a need for a runoff area at La Source at Spa? A 40 mph hairpin??

If there was no runoff like there should be, Fisi would have won the Belgian GP. People can take too many liberties with these asphalt runoffs.

Exactly...F1 circuits are meant to be testing the best drivers in the world. Some were found sorely lacking this weekend.

[I am evil Homer]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/79285

Nice one Kimi!!

[Steve2009]

Suzuka leaves less of a margin for error than the (as described by Martin Brundle) "supermarket car parks" that have been built in recent years. That doesn't mean it is dangerous.
Perfecty put! Up: