You quite missed the point there buddy: ofcourse the spectators get robbed with overlong SC periods. When I go to a race I pay to see racing for the foreseen race length (not just F1, also support races), and not 90 percent of it. Do the the prices get reduced by ten percent? No, most of the time they get increased by quite a margin. I can live with a few SC laps here and there, especialy after accidents, but especialy in the last races with a bit of water on the track it really got a farce. The point of F1 races is not to wait until the track gets dry. Racing is an open air event and it is dangerous at all times. Talking about racing and talking about avoiding unnecessary risks at the same time is pretty much a joke itself. Why are they even racing then? Why do they have rain tyres? It is for pure fun, entertainment (and business). I got to tell you, when I go to a race track I am well aware of the fact that racing is dangerous, even as a spectator and that I can get injured or killed despite the fact that we have meter high catch fences and paved runoff areas bigger than football fields. Drivers were skidding off the track, so where is the problem? Drivers get off the track in dry conditions aswell and crash when they shoot over the limit, or they pile up. That's racing. Should we avoid racing in dry conditions aswell? For me it's important in racing, that the driver who adjusts his driving the best to all conditions wins. No matter wether it is raining or not. In the past, before we got those ridiciolous SC periods with wet tracks, SC or red flags were only deployed, when the wether was too bad, so that the helicopter could not fly or when the cars really couldn't drive. Hell, even MotoGP makes standing starts in rain, in much worse conditions than we had in Monaco or Silverstone. Another big problem for me is, that the competition gets influenced. The only fair starting procedure is a standing start, everything else is a mess and with bad visiblity even more dangerous. Once more, the Spa pileup did not happen because they made a standing start in wet conditions. It happened because Coulthard lost the car down to Eau Rouge and everybody after him couldn't avoid him because they were basicly at full speed. If you want to have an analalogy to that situation, watch Silverstone 1973. Fun fact: it happened in dry conditions in lap 2. Now where is the limit of safe and dangerous racing conditions?
The alternative is big accidents where a big part of the field gets wiped out, leaving fewer cars to watch for the rest of the race. I would feel more robbed if that happened. If a repeat of Spa 1998 happened we would be left with 9 cars to watch for the rest of the race. Not cool. Yeah well, you can't control the weather. With streams of standing water on track and insufficient wet tires (according to Vettel), not a lot to do other than start behind the SC and try to move the worst of the standing water. There wasn't "a bit of water on the track", there was quite a lot more than that. You saw how the cars slid around, you saw the amount of spray once the field got up to speed. After the green flag dropped awesome racing ensued, in extremely difficult mixed conditions, half the track soaked and the other half nearly dry. I was on the edge of my seat, I tell you that. Well, they didn't. Not in Monaco, nor at Silverstone. Yep and nope, it's dangerous, always has been, always will be. No need to take unnecessarily idiotic risks though. Which is also why seat belts, proper helmets, armco and catch fencing were introduced over the years. Yep, and watching people get killed or maimed on live TV isn't fun, entertaining nor good business. Side by side while being completely blinded by spray is better than single file? No, it isn't. There's a very good reason why there hasn't been a repeat of the Spa 98 pile-up. After La Source there were cars going two, even three wide, bunched up and completely blinded by spray. Pretty much blinded in every direction, if not by spray then by other cars in very close proximity.
I am not going to depict everything. I think I made my point quite clear regarding unnecessary risks and overdone safety, especialy when this safety thinking leads to quite contrary sitations. I am still quite sure that a gravel trap would have saved Saloms life for that matter. But anyway, it was a dry track and **** happens in racing. It was a driving mistake btw, same as Bianchi who just was too damn fast under yellow flags and no HALO or anything else in the world could have saved him. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the evolution of safety in motorsport, but only when it doesn't destroy the sole of racing. When even old drivers, who raced in far more dangerous circumstances, complain about overdone safety meassurements, you know that there is something terribly wrong. The day when F1 drivers get a roof or HALO I will switch off my TV for sure. I also wouldn't go by Vettels statement has he clearly had more severe problems than other drivers. Rosberg kept the car within the white lines throughout the whole race. And yet you didn't answer my question why MOTO GP drivers are able to start in far worse conditions without a safety car, without any crumple zone. Just take a look back at races like Donington '93 or Barcelona '96. No stupid safety car laps at the start, but pure racing right from the beginning. Despite the fact that it is a risk itself to turn laps after laps behind the safety car, as tyres get cold or people like Lewis Hamilton allmost crash into the SC as they loose concentration, and despite the fact that the risk of aquaplaning is far higher for slow driving F1 cars without the effect of downforce. And again: the Spa pile up was not caused by cars driving in the rain. Watch it again please. Coulthard spun and the cars behind him crashed into him. The rest of the race after the restart was held in similar conditions btw. Quite similar situation happened in 2012 at the start, when Alonso allmost got killed in dry conditions with good visiblity. It's just a tight spot, you know. If we start to avoid every damn little risk at all costs, we don't need to watch racing.
Nobody is suggesting that a halo would have saved him. The halo is mainly to avoid accidents like the one that killed Justin Wilson. How exactly does a few laps of SC destroy the soul of racing? You had a long action packed race served on a silver platter last Sunday after the race went green. Where should the line be drawn then, regarding motorsport safety? Is a single fatality once a year acceptable? Or one every other year? Again, avoiding risks that you know sooner or later will result in a fatality is what should be pursued, always. People don't want to see their heroes get injured or die on live TV, and sponsors will pull out if that happens. Too much risk means no future for the sport. No matter how nostalgic people get, we will never return to the old days of racing, and that's just a fact that fans have to live with. I've watched it a thousand times over the years. 12 cars wouldn't have piled into him and each other had they not been 2-3 wide while blinded by spray. Also the backmarkers couldn't stop in time once they knew there was trouble ahead, again because of standing water and lack of visibility. Their brakes locked on the wet track surface as soon as they tried to avoid the carnage. Recreate that scenario in dry conditions with full visibility and Coulthard would likely have been the only DNF in that accident.
What they should do is to drive a few laps behind safety car (if really neccessary), and when the worst standing water is gone, they come back to the start grid and have a normal standing start.
