When you have extreme feats of engineering like F1 cars storming around a circuit at almost 200 miles an hour, certain levels of safety are expected. Driver safety is paramount as the highly skilled operators risk their lives every time they step into the vehicle. The sport has, tragically, claimed lives before, like greats Gilles Villeneuve and Ayrton Senna.
Tragedies typically spark heavy reviews of safety standards, but one of the quirks of F1 is that not all tracks around the world measure up in the same way. Some have even resisted the urge to install further modern upgrades. There are numerous reasons as to why some sanctioned F1 tracks don’t quite measure up in terms of safety standards compared to others. Let's take a closer look at why some tracks have stood their ground when it comes to safety measures.
Why There Are Differences
It seems a little strange that drivers have to face varying degrees of safety differences, depending on what track they are currently driving on. But differences are just part of life. Footballers face a range of atmospheres and conditions at different grounds. In tennis, the surface can shape the entire match. Fans — and punters — often see these variables as decisive moments, especially when playing daily free betting games. These include prediction contests and sports quizzes across events like football, F1, and more, where players can win free bets or other rewards based on knowledge and analysis. Variations in conditions exist in any sport. But why do some F1 tracks resist change?
Cost
Cost is always the prime culprit to any limiting factors when it comes to making any necessary upgrades in F1. Implementing the latest safety standards is not just down to things like the cost of materials and labour to install the changes, either.
Changes often require big modifications to a track’s infrastructure like altering dangerously fast blind corners, or extending the reach of run-off areas. Those can be massively expensive undertakings.
Further Cost Ties
There are further costs tied into what updates can happen and when. Many tracks are privately owned and the financial resources that are available for updates can vary greatly between tracks. F1 is about the financial numbers as much as it is the sport, and some track owners may not be able to justify a huge investment of capital into updates.
Room for Improvement
There are also major limitations at some tracks as well, which prevent further safety measures being installed. Monaco is a prime example, as the famously tight street track simply does not have the physical room to have track redesigns and run-off areas added to update. That’s why safety improvements there are more about upgrading barriers and medical response rather than changing the layout itself.
On the other hand, take the newer Jeddah Corniche Circuit. The track was designed with safety in mind from the outset, incorporating wide run-off areas and advanced barriers to help reduce the risks that come with its high-speed corners. Here's how the two compare:
So literally having no room for improvement is a major determining factor in what safety measures are put in place. Even modern street tracks like Las Vegas and Baku simply don’t have the room for any more than what they have installed already.
Clinging on to Tradition
Some iconic F1 tracks like Monza, Spa, Interlagos and Silverstone have so much tradition attached to them. Sometimes it is hard to completely let go of that tradition and what significance they have for drivers and fans.
Preserving a track’s identity can mean a bit of pushback against modernisation, particularly when it comes to the character of the track and what unique challenges it presents to drivers. Slowing down a famous corner that’s taken flat-out by introducing a chicane, for example, would shift the entire identity of the track.
But this doesn’t mean that tracks being used aren’t safe. It just means that some are not technically as safe as others. All tracks in use are fully sanctioned and licensed by the FIA which inspects and grades them. The FIA is always reviewing safety measures, but more often than not, changes appear gradually rather than suddenly just sprung on tracks.
Ethos of F1
Everyone wants the drivers to be safe and car designs have to follow strict safety measures and have adopted modern tech like halos. But F1 inherently is about the high speed risk. Things like huge run-off areas around the track would eliminate some of the thrills and danger of racing, and over-sanitised tracks would likely take away from the experience that spectators get. So there’s a very fine balance.
Lack of Uniformity
Is the lack of uniformity over safety measures hindering the progress of F1? Not at all, it’s simply providing different racing environments, some of which appear to carry a little more risk than others.
Many drivers rate Jeddah in Saudi Arabia as being dangerous because of blind corners and high speeds, and teams face massive challenges on a rainy day at Spa in Belgium, and the extremely fine margins of space at Monaco are well known to all.
Simply put, all F1 tracks have elements of danger, but all tracks have to meet the FIA’s minimums when it comes to safety rating, and evolving standards are always under the microscope.