Quote:
Originally Posted by svandamme
he would not have been so bold if that was Monaco, and there was Armco instead of a runout zone
|
That's one thing I noticed, during the race (BTW, I only caught the last 3 laps, but wow, what 3 laps to watch!). The track may still have the same layout as in the past, but with all the sanitary high-traction runoff areas, it certainly doesn't have the same sense of danger as from the Spa of old, does it?
On one hand, that's definitely progress. It's nice not to lose a driver or two every year due to blunt trauma or burns.
But, at the same time, safety is squeezing a bit of the character out of these historic tracks, isn't it? You can look at racing pictures from the 50s, 60s and 70s. Just one little tight snapshot, and you can still tell exactly which track it was/which corner--by the location or the Armco, or a drainage ditch, or the style of the apex berm, or the presence of a certain building, or the location of the crowd. Now, all these tracks look so similar, unless a picture is taken from far enough a distance that you can see some identifiable marker 50 yards off the side of the track, it's hard to tell where the photo was taken. Look at some of those pictures comparing the location of the crowd at Eau Rouge. It used to be that Eau Rough was taken flat out in top gear. It still may be, but in the past, if you got it wrong, you'd likely scatter bits of your car (and quite possibly yourself and maybe some spectators) for a quarter mile. Now, it's so unexpected for injury to occur, that if you get it wrong, you lift off a little, drive along the concrete apron, and maybe not even wreck the car. There's certainly a difference in the consequences, at least psychologically. Safer, yes. But somehow a little less romantic.
Back to Stijn's point: It's nice to have gutsy driving, but I also wish there were slightly greater consequences for having an off, other than having to concede the next straightaway/corner.