The spa- francorchamps circuit has been synonymous both with sublime conditions on an route as well with danger being a characteristic feature of motorsport prevalent in the spa- francorchamps circuit that produced iconic wet-weather fights as well as warns about the inherent risks of the sport. The controversial discussion that erupted at the most recent Belgian Grand Prix has led to this dichotomy to be brought to the fore and paints a thousand words about the current situation in formula one namely safety versus spectacle, risk versus entertainment.
George Russell, Mercedes driver and head of the Grand Prix Drivers Association was the one who brought the matter to the fore. After a very long 80 minutes delay to start the race because of heavy rain and the previous cancellation of the Formula 3 race Russell was not tactful in his reply. A racer will always desire to get going. You like driving on rain. The thing is though, that when you are travelling that quick; more than 200 miles an hour out of Eau Rouge, all you can see is nothing; you might as well put a blindfold on. They are not racing but just stupid things, he said.
The position taken by Russell has a fair foundation in recent and past analogy. Spa in itself was a devastating affair as the visibilities and weather were tragic. With this history in mind, drivers and teams have leveled vociferous criticism at visibility in the rain, which is many orders of magnitude more important than control of the car and one about which there is no amount of courage, or ability, that can adequately offset. This was highlighted in the previous British Grand Prix with several drivers Andrea Kimi Antonelli, IsackHadjar, Gabriel Bortoleto, and Liam Lawson all retired due to perilous conditions with Franco Colapinto not even going to the start. It is not an issue regarding seeing who wants to race but who will race safely.
But not everyone in the paddock agrees with Russell. One of the drivers who set off to prove this theory wrong, Max Verstappen, showed publicly that his aggressive racing instincts coincided with the longing to see the F1 in its most primal form. In between Turn 1 and 5 there was quite a lot of water but then had we done two laps behind the safety car it would have been much more clear. Arguments presented by Verstappen: And the remainder of the track was on the go. And when a person cannot see he can always lift. You will see at one point… So then it would be safer to say: So you know, why don t we wait until it is absolutely dry then we can just start on slicks. It is not wet-weather racing on my part. Anyway, they are free to do what they want to do in the end of the day. However, I just think it is a little disappointing to all. Automobiles in their wet races of the olden time, you will never see any more.”
It is instructive that these two are disparate. Verstappen speaks up on the behalf of fans and old school racers, who still dream of rainy, unpredictable classics – the races that will define the difference between the best and the good. However, Russell makes these comments as someone who is part of the GPDA and they indicate the change of priorities in modern F1; the need to ensure the safety of life and limb above all. He is not being melodramatic when he uses the analogy, this is correct, it is even true to say, you might as well have a blindfold on. It is not a test of courage, but a breeding of an excuse at highway speeds, to mention nothing of F1 speeds, to be shut off of all visibility.
However, it is not only a matter of attitude towards the individual. It is a contract that is getting rewritten by Formula 1 towards its drivers and fans. In a sport where the technological complexity is accompanied by an insatiable obsession to make the sport appeal to the greatest number of people internationally, dramatic spectacles are highly sought after. But, as ever, the risks are tremendous, particularly at Spa. The job of a race director has become a juggling act: the need to have drama overriding against the imperative of safety that can not be compromised.
Russell would end the interrupted Belgian Grand Prix in fifth place, a score that his Mercedes team manager Toto Wolff would call a damage limitation, the finest outcome he could get under the circumstances of a tough weekend. It did not matter in the end but in the bigger picture of sparking a debate on rain and risk. Many were frustrated with these delays, and the safety car laps felt like the re-calibration that Formula 1 was going through. No longer is it courage, it is clear visibility that is the demarcation line.
Overall, the dispute between the caution of Russell and frustration of Verstappen is not likely to be over soon. The ties of wet-weather racing will always be a part of the sport memory, but the more significant considerations occur the more F1 will-correctly-swerve towards the common sense of safety. It sounds, as Russell helpfully put it, like racing without visibility is just plain stupid, not competition. It is now the reality of modern Formula 1 and it is a reality that the sport must learn to live with at the cost of having fewer soaked-to-the-bone classics but with which its future must survive as well.
Follow us on Zeroto30s social channels:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zeroto30s/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/zeroto30s
Twitter: https://twitter.com/zeroto30s
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Zeroto30s