Debate: is F1 too fast for Montreal?

Fernando Alonso, McLaren-Mercedes, Montreal, 2007, 470150

Last year F1 fans held their breath as Robert Kubica’s BMW ricocheted off the retaining wall at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve with sickening force.

Faced with the task of improving the safety provisions at that bend the organisers have decided the best thing they could do was to bring the wall closer to the track. Is this a sign that F1 has outgrown the Montreal circuit?

Accorsing to the track owners, moving the wall closer to the track reduces the chance of it being hit at as critical an angle as Kubica’s car did last year. The theory is if the car strikes the wall with only a glancing blow the energy will be dissipated more gradually, reducing risk to the driver.

However there’s little doubt that the ideal solution would be to have a run-off area there. But in the tight confines of the Isle Notre-Dame that simply isn’t possible. The Casino hairpin at the end of the straight where Kubica crashed has already been moved once to increase the run-off at the far end of the track.

There are plenty of other points around the circuit where barriers stand in places where tarmac run-off ight be preferable.

The circuit owners have also apparently lowered some of the more unforgiving kerbs this year, especially those at the chicane by the ‘Wall of Champions’. And a taller debris fence now stands at the site of Kubica’s crash to reduce the chance of a car clearing the wall and hitting traffic on the other side of the track.

I hope that Formula 1 can continue visiting the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve because it’s an excellent track that’s been on the F1 calendar for 30 years almost without interruption.

This year two new street circuits at Valencia and Singapore arrive on the F1 calendar. I wonder if this is a sign that, after years of Hermann Tilke building circuits with run-off so vast the spectactors can barely glimpse the cars, the F1 authorities have finally accepted that cars are always going to hit walls and the best thing to do is figure out how best to protect a driver in that eventuality?

Videos of Robert Kubica’s crash in last year’s Canadian Grand Prix

Have you been to the Canadian Grand Prix at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve? Share your experiences with other F1 fans.

Advert | Go Ad-free

35 comments on Debate: is F1 too fast for Montreal?

1 2 3
  1. Cooperman said on 5th June 2008, 15:52

    I’d disagree, Keith. How can F1 be too fast for Montreal and not Monaco?

    There isn’t a lot of room at the part of the Canadian track where Kubica went off last year for a run-off area and if there isn’t a wall to stop a car then it will be out of control when it comes back onto the track (on the other side of the hairpin). F1 cars aren’t designed to be hit at odd angles, which is why Sato had to be airlifted to hospital after his Jordan was T-boned by Heidfield’s Sauber a few years back in Austria.

    A bigger issue at Canada has to be why the tarmac reacts in such a way that only the racing line is anywhere near grippy. Why, when a driver has to deviate from the best route, are they immediately in the wall?

  2. Kris said on 5th June 2008, 16:21

    I’ve commented on this elsewhere, but last year, kubica’s car hit a section of barrier that was coming back towards the track, meaning that he hit it nearing head-on.

    I can only assume that when we hear about the barrier being brought closer to the track, they mean that the section immediately *before* the one kubica hit has been moved in line with the section he *did* hit, meaning that if a repeat occurred, it would be a glancing, side impact rather than an almost head-on one.

    I really wish there were some pictures for us to have a look at.

    I really don’t feel that F1 is too fast for montreal, and think that neutering the kerbs on the last turn is a bit of an over-reaction, not to mention the fact that I *liked* the risk of a driver making a mistake and going out of the race, a risk that big tarmac run-off areas are all but eliminating.

  3. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 5th June 2008, 16:24

    I’m with you on the kerbs Kris. I’m all for safety, but F1 is supposed to be difficult.

  4. I disagree that Montreal is somehow no longer suited to F1. With respect to Robert and his driving ability, he made a mistake, messed up his overtaking move, lost control and crashed. The accident was spectacular, I know, I was in the grandstands to see it.

    Building in more runoff areas just makes for dumber drivers. They need to know that there are consequences when they make bad decisions on the race track. I’m not endorsing crashes like the one we saw in Montreal but acres of runoff is ridiculous. It takes the race away from the paying spectator AND it encourages bad driving.

    Montreal is a wonderful, natural track and requires a driver to respect it, much like Monaco and Melbourne. I don’t think F1 should move away from these venues because of a crash. Drivers need to adapt.

    The corner has been re-profiled to prevent a driver from getting airborne before hitting the wall. But again, drivers need to recognize and respect the track. Montreal is unforgiving but hey, it’s not a go-kart race out there – it’s a grand prix.

    These pilots need to be sensible when they make a move on the track. Kubica was taking a risk on a restart and he would agree, there was a good chance something could go wrong. He would admit he took a big chance and paid for it but I don’t he would argue for Montreal to be abandoned.

  5. Is F1 too fast for Montreal? No, no, no. Circuit Gilles Villeneuve provides an excellent challenge for the drivers. Yes, it is tight in places, and yes perhaps some of the safety areas aren’t as advanced as those found at Sakhir or Turkey. But motor sport is dangerous and accidents can happen at any track in the world. I think the issue of the tarmac is because the roads are not used when the race isn’t on. They just seem to be used by the occasional car, and mostly joggers and skaters. Add in the marbles from the running of F1 cars and I can see why the outside of corners are slippery.

  6. Pingguest said on 5th June 2008, 16:32

    If Formula 1 has become too fast for Montreal, I don’t think we should drop the circuit from the calendar. Instead the Formula 1 cars should be slowed down.

  7. Kris said on 5th June 2008, 16:39

    I’ve dug up a picture of the fence in question, but the picture shwows the moment of impact, so I’d advise against clicking on it if you’re of a nervous disposition.

    Image is here:

    http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/jpg/userfile2.fence.jpg

    As you can see, if they take the section of barrier immediately before the point of impact, and bring it into line with the point that he did hit, this should prevent a similar accident from happening again.

  8. Seb Carter said on 5th June 2008, 16:55

    Absolutely not

    Montreal is a fantastic track and when you think that it hasn’t changed in terms of runoff from the days of the turbos (when they had over 1000bhp) then i dont think F1 is too fast for Montreal. Just because a circuit doesn’t have alot of run off doesnt mean it isnt safe. Look at Nascar and all other oval racing series. The runoff at oval tracks consists of barriers…and thats it. Yet still cars race by them at over 200mph.

    I think a solution at fast tracks such as Montreal would be to have crash barriers that deform to the impact like they have in American series now, such as Indycar. It would lessen the energy of impact that drivers like Kubica experience when they crash head on. Runoff is important in F1, and im all for safety, but lack of run off doesnt mean its too unsafe. It just means that we have to find other ways to keep the drivers safe.

    F1 is meant to be difficult. we can’t just let the drivers make a mistake and get away with it. in many ways, run off allows for stupid mistakes to get away scot free!

  9. M Smith said on 5th June 2008, 17:21

    – “I wonder if this is a sign that, after years of Hermann Tilke building circuits with run-off so vast the spectactors can barely glimpse the cars, the F1 authorities have finally accepted that cars are always going to hit walls and the best thing to do is figure out how best to protect a driver in that eventuality?” –

    I hope this is the case. Formula 1 is supposed to be very difficult and street circuits leave no room for error. FIA should look into ways to protect the driver in the tighter confines.

  10. M Smith said on 5th June 2008, 17:53

    On the GP this weekend, showers (or thunderstorms depending on which report you see) are predicted this weekend at the circuit, so we may have another wet race.

  11. TommyBellingham said on 5th June 2008, 18:10

    Montreal is one of the biggest challenges I agree that F1 should be difficult too much run off on certain circuits. Cough Cough Bahrain

  12. Dorian said on 5th June 2008, 18:19

    I don’t think that F1 has become too fast for Montreal and as others have said it is such a great circuit steeped in history that it shouldn’t be dropped from the calender either.

    I disagree with Pinguest who suggested that F1 cars should be slowed down (assuming that he/she means in general). The cars have been slowed down enough in recent times and part of the reason why Formula 1 is what it is, is because the cars are so fast. Also, as others have said, F1 is meant to be difficult and part of that difficulty is trying to control that powerful beast round a race track.

    I’m inclined to agree with Keith when he says that (as they’ve been doing anyway), the governing bodies should keep trying to improve driver protection.

  13. Diacho said on 5th June 2008, 19:07

    I don’t want Montreal to be dropped, but I’m gonna play Devil’s Advocate here and question wether we are being too eager to accept too big a risk. I mean, the cars today have less hp, but in many ways are more difficult to control than the 1000+hp of the turbos. They get to speed way faster, and corner faster, so I believe on that specific moment Kubica was faster than anyone ever before.
    The FIA has indeed slowed the cars, but much, much more on the straights than on the corners, so yes, maybe F1′s cornering speeds do have outgrown this circuit.
    Accidents are unpredictable, right? Let’s not forget that. Anything can happen, and as much as I want GP racing to be difficult, if Kubica had hit his head (literally) on the wall there, we might be today crying over what could have been. I think the question is: what risks are we willing to accept here?

  14. Oliver said on 5th June 2008, 19:29

    Rob, I don’t think Kubica messed up his overtaking, Trulli just happened to move into his part at that very moment he was about to make a pass. Just an accident, you cant really attribute it to either of them. And if “silly” Coulthard can give us even higher side impact head protect, why cant the wall be modified?

  15. Sri said on 5th June 2008, 19:46

    I still remember what drew me to F1. All that techno driven drivel and the speed and the GODS who went at high speeds. F1 is not a sport for pansies. Do not get me wrong, ‘am all for safety, but i think trying to slow things down is actually dumbing F1 down. Well sort of. We see some stupid rule changes every-time someone felt this way(FIA), don’t we? :P

    Can’t make everyone happy i guess… but this is supposed to be a sport where we could tell the difference between a boy and man and then, a man and a superman.

1 2 3

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.