Increased security for German GP following attacks

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Recent terrorist attacks in Germany have prompted an increase in security for this weekend’s race at the Hockenheimring.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

A great viewing tip from FlyingLobster27:

Last weekend saw Nismo’s YouTube channel broadcast a Super GT race for the first time this year, and apparently there is a deal in place for the rest of the season.

This was my favourite championship last year, and I’m dreaming of being able to get to Motegi for the double-header season finale! The race at Sugo was very entertaining, worth getting up for, even if it ended five laps early with a red flag. Next round is at Fuji in two weekends’ time.
FlyingLobster27

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Spud and Mikef1!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Nelson Piquet won the German Grand Prix 30 years ago today. McLaren would have completed the podium but both their drivers ran out of fuel on the final lap, letting Ayrton Senna in for second ahead of points leader Nigel Mansell.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

49 comments on “Increased security for German GP following attacks”

  1. Still think it’s too soon to call Hamilton as 2016 Champion with as much confidence as the print media was yesterday, in reaction to him moving marginally ahead in the standings.

    Maybe I’m over dramatising the engine penalty, but I think it’s going to be a very close run in. Hamilton is driving very well when he is able to though so I still think he will come out ahead, like 2014.

    1. it will only be a close run if Hamilton’s reliability issue rears it’s ugly head. Just like in 2014 :) You know I am sure Toto is right, it will come down to the last race. Until someone can legitimately challenge Merc, Hamilton will continue to suffer ‘reliability’ problems.

      … Or Hamilton hires a crew of Lawyers to threaten a civil suite based on a breach of contract … Think of all the money Mercedes lose if Hamilton keeps winning races :) :) :)

      When Lewis gets a clean year in, where his reliability is better than his teammates or is on par, and things like ‘tire pressures’ don’t open the door for certain changes, I will reconsider my position. 2014 Lewis was done in by reliability, this year hes been done in by reliability, last year there was a balance change to the car, or some sort of ‘setup issue’ stemming from the ‘tire pressure’ issue. Per Hamilton, something Wolff didn’t care for Lewis to talk about, if memory

      1. What the hell are you on about? Was reliability to blame for the Spanish GP crash? Was there a conspiracy all those years at McLaren when reliability kept retiring Lewis from the lead of the race, costing him a likely 2012 championship? Cars break down, but a hell of a lot less than they used to. You really think they spend buckets of money for a top driver and then compromise their ability to perform? You really think a HUGE company trying to show off it’s technology and engineering prowess as being the best of the best would make their cars fail, on purpose? If you do, that’s insanity.

      2. If you’re a Lewis Hamilton fan, there is no reason to complain whatsoever.

        He’s leading the championship, has the psychological edge over his team mate, certainly has the backing of Merc Management (why else would you pay a driver 40 million a year to not back him??) and is well on course to winning the title. Deep down Nico Rosberg, as good a driver he is, knows that as things stand, Lewis is better than him. Maybe Nico might have the edge if and when Merc fail to produce a dominant car?

        At this point, Lewis has nothing to prove, whereas Nico has everything to prove.

      3. @xsavior Here we go again…

        Firstly no Mercedes has retired from a race this year due to a reliability issue. No debate there. No silly theories. Secondly remember it was Rosberg who had a gearbox issue at Silverstone, a puncture at Canada and brake issues at Monaco supposedly. All Hamilton has had go wrong for him in a race due to reliability was a water issue at Russia when he was set to finish second anyway.

        Finally remember that the table would look very different had Ferrari delivered on their potential with Vettel, but due to numerous reliability issues that simply hasn’t happened. But I suppose that’s all one massive conspiracy theory as well.

        /tin-foil hat mode

        1. “All Hamilton has had go wrong for him in a race due to reliability was a water issue at Russia when he was set to finish second anyway.”

          And reliability issues in qualifying just don’t matter right? Deliberately twisting the facts just makes you look as bad as pcxmac

        2. Hmmm, I still can’t find proof of that Monaco brake failure @craig-o. Rosberg mentioned it but the team never backed that claim. It’s safer to say that Nico was not comfortable with the car (for whatever reason) and thus completely off the pace. No mechanical issue there.

      4. I don’t know what reliability issues you are referring to.

        The thing that bothers me is that if for example Nico is ahead of Lewis, there is no one on Lewis’ pit wall who’s going to try to get him ahead of Nico. The opposite is also true. For a team that says it’s drivers are free to race, not giving them their own strategist belies the notion that they are. So with the difficulties in following and overtaking, what we’re really left with is a race to turn one and the driver who wins the most of them will be the WDC.

    2. Well, he has better chances than he had 6 races ago when it seemed like Nico was better overall. Now tables have turned. And he has momentum.

  2. … serves

  3. Seeing the headline about historic Hockenheim returning made me think the old track was coming back! You can imagine the disappointment!

    1. Michael Brown (@)
      27th July 2016, 1:35

      Losing the old Hockenheim is one of the great tragedies of the last decade.

      1. No it isn’t. It was 15 years since F1 raced on the old circuit.

        1. It’s 15 years now but F1 raced on it last decade (in 2001). @mbr-9 point stands and I fully agree with him @david-a.

          1. @x303 I agree too. I was just pointing out the length of time, which is longer than it feels.

    2. I was the same @Strontium! Not sure what I was expecting to read but I got excited for a split second.

  4. I loved the old Hockenheim, that blast though the forest was truly epic, with the sound of engines bouncing off the trees.

    I suppose it might be for the best really, that the current cars are not running on the classic track. People might thing the trees are being ‘strimmed’………..;

    1. @paulguitar, the old circuit layout was not without it’s detractors though. I remember that James Hunt hated commentating on the races there – he started ranting in one race that it reminded him of “Noah’s Ark”, as the top 10 comprised of five pairs of cars which were running nose to tail and were separated by large gaps, then began complaining that the circuit produced processional races and began wondering “why do we even bother coming here?”.

      People might hark back to the old circuit, but would the races actually be any good these days? It was generally agreed in the past that the layout put even more of an emphasis on the car instead of the driver, so the current field would probably just end up being even more strung out.

      Equally, given that the circuit had a reputation for being a car breaker, in the past there were always questions over whether a driver would make it to the end, throwing in an interesting element of uncertainty into the mix. However, with the cars becoming much more reliable in recent years, there is now less variability due to car issues and the grid is less likely to be mixed up as a result.

      Monza, a circuit that shares similar characteristics to Hockenheim (a heavy emphasis on engine and braking power, and therefore traditionally hailed as a “car breaker”), shows the sort of trend that I think the old Hockenheim circuit would have fallen to.
      Back in 2001, when the old layout of Hockenheim was used, almost half the grid retired from the Italian GP – when you look over the past 5 years or so, the retirement rate has fallen markedly (just a couple of cars retiring), and the most common description of races at Monza in more recent years has been “processional”.

      I suspect that, if the old layout of Hockenheim was somehow resurrected and a race held there with the current cars, the races would most probably turn out to be fairly dull. Perhaps, in some ways, it is better that the old layout is gone – it lets people imagine the races as they would like them to be, not as they would most probably actually turn out to be.

      1. If the old Hockenheim was brought back & did produces races that were fairly dull I honestly couldn’t care less because the quality of a track & how good a track is is about more than just the races it produces in F1.

        It is true to say that not all the races at the old Hockenheim were great (Although the last few on that track were very good in different ways) but watching the cars blast through the forest at 200mph+ was a spectacular sight & watching it was far more fun than any of the races on this rubbish new layout.

        I hate the current layout, I hate watching races around it & I hate driving it in games because its an uninspiring layout that has no redeeming features, Its nothing special & it has no right sharing the name of the old layout because it shares nothing in common with what was a classic & unique circuit.

        1. RogerAyles, I suppose it depends whether you are looking at the circuit from the point of view of the driver, or from the point of view of a spectator.

          Generally, I’ve heard quite a few former and current drivers offer their opinions on the old layout and found it fairly dull to drive – there were few particularly noteworthy or technically challenging corners, and most of the time they were just sitting on the straights with the throttle wide open and simply hoping that the engine wouldn’t explode before they got to the end of it.

          Even from the point of view of the fans, it wasn’t especially good for those visiting the track – all of the stands were located within the stadium section, and the thick woods meant that access tracks to the furthest points of the track were essentially non-existent (which was a major problem for the marshals as well).

          Being confined to the slow speed stadium section, most of the people going to the circuit wouldn’t see the spectacle of cars blasting through the forest at 200mph+: they were stuck watching the cars going through the slow corners in the stadium section in single file, so the visual impact for them would have been fairly unspectacular.

          1. Michael Brown (@)
            27th July 2016, 23:33

            True. The issue was that so little of the track couldn’t end seen, and the number of laps was low (mid 40’s like Spa). If you cut down the trees to get more grandstands and visibility, then you remove what is the most unique think about the old Hockenheim: the forest.

  5. What is currently happening in both Germany and France is bloodcurdling and increasingly alarming. Europe and the way people live their lives is quite literally changing before our eyes. And security agencies are on overdrive trying to predict almost unpredictable events.
    I cut short my outing in the city last Saturday night simply because a thought occurred to me especially after the numerous attacks in Paris and Germany that no where is safe. And seeing so many people in one place happy and living their lives might be what the perpetrators don’t like. It is really a shame.
    Let’s hope the F1 event takes place without any glitch and most importantly that the people who bear such hatred in their hearts might understand that unconditional love is the greatest remedy to heart ache.

    1. Gotta live your life. Not doing what you want to do only encourages them.

    2. “And seeing so many people in one place happy and living their lives might be what the perpetrators don’t like. It is really a shame.”

      I think what perpetrators mostly don’t like is the fact that NATO countries bombed their homelands into oblivion, for no good reason. When everything you’ve had has been so unjustly taken away from you, innocent people you care for indiscriminately killed by some corporate war machinery, it’s kinda easy to let the anger prevail and go the tragic road these terrorists take.
      Secondly, Europe should look to US as the source of these terrorist attacks. US is working tirelessly to destabilize countries and leaders they don’t like and create an absolute chaos and destruction, from which the fertile angry young men come, ready to be recruited by the terrorist organizations.
      But they won’t stop. US is keeping their dominant position by obstructing other countries just as much as it by advancing itself.

      1. – I think what perpetrators mostly don’t like is the fact that NATO countries bombed their homelands into oblivion, for no good reason.

        I think you are right. The case of Libya and Syria is particularly astonishing. I have never been to any of those places but in the 2000s a friend who visited Syria found the place to be such a peaceful and beautiful country with nice people whose daily lives were not predominantly shaped, as in other countries in that region, by their faith.
        It is indeed a shame what it has become. I can’t begin to imagine the predicament of those Syrians today moving around the world and asking for refuge having lost everything.
        Having said that, it begs the question of whether man can ever exist on this planet without government sanctioned mass murders? What is the role of the UN if any in all of these massive tragedies and immense human suffering? Is the UN still necessary in the 21st century?

        1. I agree that this should be UN’s role to sanction, but they are powerless. NATO, mostly takes them as “suggestions”, nothing more than that. It shouldn’t be like that, and UN’s security council should have the last word, but America doesn’t care. UN should exist, and NATO should be there to make sure everyone complies with UN, but ironically, NATO is pretty much the main offender.

          1. As we speak, the drum beat is on for the West versus Russia.The rhetoric is ratcheting up. What does Russia have? Massive deposits of natural resources under the control of a man who is seen by some in certain quarters as unyielding.
            It would be madness for the two camps to attempt anything.

      2. That’s a disgusting comment and you should be deeply ashamed for having the gall to write it. You are trying to legitimise terrorist atrocities. There is absolutely no excuse for deliberately targeting innocent civilians. Its worth noting that the perpetrators in many of the atrocities carried out in Europe over the past few years were natural born citizens of those countries. For all the faults of western foreign policy, their forces do not deliberately attack civilians. Indeed, the Iraq war and Libyan war were conducted to remove brutal dictators who murdered thousands of their own civilians. How you manage to equate those acts with people who murder cartoonists, priests and rock concert fans is beyond me.

        1. Jamie, explaining the reasons behind these events is not trying to legitimise them. There is a big difference.

          1. “I think what perpetrators mostly don’t like is the fact that NATO countries bombed their homelands into oblivion, for no good reason. When everything you’ve had has been so unjustly taken away from you, innocent people you care for indiscriminately killed by some corporate war machinery, it’s kinda easy to let the anger prevail and go the tragic road these terrorists take.”

            His own words above, essentially saying that its understandable for someone to murder innocent civilians if they feel they have a legitimate grievance against a country. He’s making excuses for terrorists. This is totally incorrect anyway, as most of the terrorist attacks recently committed in Europe have been by home grown terrorists.

            It’s disappointing to still see that so many people still follow the simplistic notion that the recent troubles in the Middle East are solely due to western interference. This simply isn’t true. Syria and Libya were part of the Arab spring civilian uprisings which also occurred in Egypt in Tunisia – these events had nothing to do with the West. Saddam Hussein was committing atrocities in Iraq throughout the 1980’s, culminating in the illegal invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Al Qaeda’s campaign against the west began in 1993, long before the western interventions in the Middle East.

          2. His own words above, essentially saying that its understandable for someone to murder innocent civilians if they feel they have a legitimate grievance against a country

            It was badly worded, but I do not believe he is saying that it is any way legitimate or acceptable to murder innocent civilians. However, I think it is quite right to acknowledge that they have very legitimate grievances against the US in particular, and the West in general. Taking the current actions of so-called IS, we (i.e. western military powers) went in, for no valid reason, and killed a huge number of innocent Iraqi and Syrian civilians, most of whom were Muslim. It’s therefore legitimate for Iraqis and Syrians, as well as Muslims all over the world (and, indeed, caring people in general) to be angry about that.

            It is not acceptable for them to set off and start killing innocent civilians themselves. Two wrongs do not make a right. I can see, however, that some will feel there is no other way, often because they have been radicalised (i.e. brainwashed) by evil men in a position of authority. It’s not right or acceptable, but it is understandable to a certain extent.

            most of the terrorist attacks recently committed in Europe have been by home grown terrorists

            If devastation was wrought on Germany or Poland (where the two sides of my family come from) to the same scale as has happened in the Middle East, I would be just as angry living in England as I would be living in the affected country. In addition, many Muslims identify themselves as Muslims first, so these atrocities were committed against their own people. Further, as I mentioned above, most have been brainwashed.

            It’s disappointing to still see that so many people still follow the simplistic notion that the recent troubles in the Middle East are solely due to western interference. This simply isn’t true. Syria and Libya were part of the Arab spring civilian uprisings which also occurred in Egypt in Tunisia – these events had nothing to do with the West. Saddam Hussein was committing atrocities in Iraq throughout the 1980’s, culminating in the illegal invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Al Qaeda’s campaign against the west began in 1993, long before the western interventions in the Middle East.

            Western interference is not the only reason for the troubles, but is a major one. I believe it is you who are taking a very simplistic view, and ignoring the large influence of the West on the region for a much longer time period than your list shows. For instance, the “terrorists” in Afghanistan were considered freedom fighters by the west when the USSR were at war with them, and the US funded them. The middle eastern countries have been used as pawns by the west for a long time.

            Like I said, the west is not wholly responsible for the conditions and situations in the middle east, but we must take our share of blame. Again, I am not condoning the actions of the terrorists, but simply discounting western actions as key causes of the current trouble in the area is naive in the extreme.

        2. @Jamie89 You think I would be interested in your reasons why your government bombes my home?
          If you were to destroy Belgium tomorrow to the scale of what’s done in the Middle-East, because you don’t like our government, I would most certainly remember this the rest of my days, and given the chance, I would probably try to even the score.
          As it is now, I don’t care too much about what happened in the M-E, but you should not claim the moral high ground. Don’t forget that the UK and the USA started a war on false grounds. The coalition didn’t use a surgeons scalpel, but a blunt scythe to weed out a few persons, for no other reason than their greed.
          The same can be said about Belgium and what happened in Congo, +70 years ago, and for that we’re accountable for what happens over there today.

      3. Biggsy, in the case of Syria, you could point to the failings of most of the world, not just NATO, in accelerating and maintaining the conflict. The Russian government has been launching intense aerial strikes in support of Assad (they were boasting a while ago that they’d dropped more bombs than all other active participants in the conflict combined) and accelerated weapons sales to Syrian government allies, whilst other regional powers have used the conflict as an opportunity to wage a proxy war against each other to try and weaken their rivals.

        Nobody can agree on what to do to solve the crisis, and increasingly the conflict is developing in ways where it is debatable if anybody really can control the situation anymore. We talk about how the major powers push the conflict in one way or another, but it belies a different truth that is perhaps even more disconcerting to us – that nobody is in control.

    3. When people cut their nights short because of an unknown fear the terrorist have won.

      1. Sad truth but you are right.
        How then can one be security conscious in the face of these kinds of events?

        1. Figure out the odds of being caught up in an attack. If the current risk rate puts you off being near a crowd of people you shouldn’t get on a plane, get in a car, cross a road… May as well not leave the house.

          Worst case scenario, acknowledge where your exits are wherever you go but don’t not go through fear.

          1. ColdFly F1 (@)
            27th July 2016, 13:49

            “Figure out the odds”
            terrorist attack in F/B/D since Dec’15: 0.3 per 100,000 pop. per year.
            – killed by partner: 2x as risky;
            – crossing the street: 7x as risky;
            – homicide in USA: 10x as risky;
            – mosquito: 30x as risky;
            – homicide Brazil: 60x as risky;
            – heart attack: 750x as risky;

            Therefore only heartless single people without legs outside the Americas using super strong repellent should be extra cautious!
            The rest of us can enjoy life as we used to.

  6. I hope Bernie’s Mother in Law is returned safely.

    1. Why? Do you honestly care? I mean, I’m absolutely against such things, but I probably won’t think about her when I close this window. Probably even sooner.

      1. pastaman (@)
        27th July 2016, 14:21

        Because she is a human being?

  7. Yes, I care, obviously not as much as a friend or relative would, but as an observer and follower of F1 I care. It’s like I care about the safety of drivers, or I care about the quality of racing, or I care about how difficult it is for some teams to raise the finances to compete. I have no influence on the outcome of these things, but if I don’t care then how am I different from a person with no heart? This is something that crossed my path, and I, like every person that read that, have a choice as to whether I care enough to pray for Aparecida’s safe return or not.

  8. I want to said that Europe had its fair share for decades of destruction in the east but it’s not. In most case, European was being drag to conflict region by its ‘partner’, US, in middle east and the eastern Europe. US had their agenda accomplished and able to stay away ocean apart leaving European geographically insecure from middle east and Russia.

  9. ColdFly F1 (@)
    27th July 2016, 11:23

    Interesting comment by Renault in Karun’s report:

    Bob Fernley () explained they’d called (Perez) in by mistake. Perez had the medium tyre on and should have gone to the end.

  10. I really don’t think the old layout would have made the fans any happier. In the current generation of social media, everything is seen under the microscope and most of the times, there’s pessimism. The saying that, ‘grass is always greener on the other side’ makes sense here.

    Just imagine the current era of cars with wider engine disparity and DRS, it wouldn’t had been too surprising had the race been too processional or dominated by Mercedes.

    Let’s enjoy what we have and hope for a good race!

  11. what a mess São Paulo is right now. Hopefully she is returned soon. Bernie could pay for it with Mercedes prize money. They don’t need it for 2017.

  12. Interesting comment from Mansell about Button’s aventures in Hungary:

    “In years gone by you were finished so compliments to the engineers and all the amazing technology on the cars…they rescued the car.
    “I think everybody was unaware that was the situation. Normally when a brake pedal goes to the floor it’s game over but to put it into a different mode and get your brakes back, wow, I’m impressed,” said Mansell.
    “It didn’t happen in our day. We changed our pants and that’s only if we were still conscious,” he laughed.

    Even Mansell (who enjoyed first hand the “good ‘ol days”) is saying that it’s incredible the team could have fixed the car by telling the driver what to do. A good PR work on this from FOM and the fans (those who weren’t there in the 40 years ago) would appreciate and cheer the technology developed by the teams.
    That stupid rule about radio com must go, all we need is ban on driver’s coaching.

Comments are closed.