Safety on tracks.

[LuiggiSpeed]

Thinking about my latest comments on diferent threads,I may appear to be anoyingly obsessed with run-off distances,while some of you look like were still in the 70's racing scene.

Have a look at all important racing venues and you will see that safety is the number one priority on tracks today,and this have been the result of the pressure from people like Kenny Roberts Sr, Valentino Rossi and the MotoGP safety Comission, and that's why you now very rarely see people dying in races, something that really screws up the show,when live broadcasts are taking place and obviously a traumatic and undesirable thing to happen in front of thousands of people.

I've seen death first hand because we race in less than perfect tracks(better than the street,though) and if you search on YouTube for "crash,fatal,race" you will get hundreds of clips ,mostly from the 60's-70's when we were really not thinking clearly,and we seemed to thought:
"Well,that's racing".

It's within the hands of those designing the tracks to call the shots and forecast any possibility,remotely as it may seem,and remove any kind of safety hazzard that a racer might face, car or bike.Hitting a wall on a car is no joke, as many drivers have been killed not only by impact but also cars tend to explode and get on fire, while car drivers tend to get knocked out while all this is happening,leaving them charred before they know it. Bikers don't get cherred to death but hitting a wall it's certainly no simple matter.

So forgive me all if I'm the lone soul in this forum who always b i t c h about this section being too close to the other,or this run-off being too small and those sort of things,my intention is not to critizise just for fun,I have worked with FIM oficials to improve safety on our own circuits, after some accidents we have witnessed,and I have worn the thinking hat on that comission,along with some other nice people from Lat Am,and also have faced the reluctancy of track owners to change things around just because someone got killed,after all, it's racing and we all sign waivers,we're the crazy ones who climb aboard a bloddy motorcycle and hit 180mph and it's our problem if we get killed,don't we?

NOT!!!

Tracks should be correctly designed from the begining,starting on the right foot,because once settled in, it's very difficult to change things around.It takes a big sue to have track owners actually working for the safety of racers,if at all,and for the most part, dangerous spots are mostly there because nobody imagined someone would fall in that place, in that way,in that direction, even though after the fact it looks mightly logical that if Murphy hangs around the track and puts his damn hand over someone, ugly things happen,unless you happen to have an inquiring mind.

So making a turn "slow" and sitting there thinking it's safe because nobody is going to go through there at any speed is naive ,at best, in real life,people lose brakes, get frozen at the controls, target-fixiate, run into each other, rain makes it even worst, and God knows what else,so a propper circuit should be like a controlled enviroment with all the safety nets possible to catch a fallen Brother,if anything goes unexpectedly bad.

Ok, now I got it out of my system!

[bio]

I guess this topic really does deserve its own thread. Good idea you've opened it, Luiggi!

I've always tried not to neglect safety with my designs - I guess I'm that kinda "oversafe" person in real life anyway. My problem is that since i never ever raced on a track I can only use my imagination and experience as a race viewer when trying to guess racing lines, speeds, etc. Of course a lot of times I simply misjudge things. What would be very helpful for me, for example, is a written set of "rules" regarding these safety issues.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I fully appreciate your view as a racer that safety is paramount, and on that I agree.
What I would say however is while no circuit should be a death trap, racing is by it's nature a dangerous business.
Not every circuit has the space for 75m (to use your figure from another thread) gravel traps, nor I suspect would riders and drivers want them on every corner.

I have to take issue regarding one aspect of your post though...

Originally Posted by LuiggiSpeed

Hitting a wall on a car is no joke, as many drivers have been killed not only by impact but also cars tend to explode and get on fire, while car drivers tend to get knocked out while all this is happening,leaving them charred before they know it. Bikers don't get cherred to death but hitting a wall it's certainly no simple matter.

It's thankfully very rare in circuit racing that a driver is killed, it's argueable that it takes something very unusual to have happened (such as a second high "G" impact). It's even more rare that a car explodes. Fuel and oil lines can of course be torn and leak resulting in fire, but that is regarded in many way as an acceptable risk.
From chatting with my cousin, who is a tin top racer, the risk of being knocked out has been hugely reduced by the HANS device.

Open wheel racing on ovals is a sadly unfortunate exception to that, but then 200+mph, concrete walls, cheese grater fencing and ethanol for fuel, is in my own opinion a recipe for disaster.

Truth be told I've seen more bike fires on televised motorsport than cars. Whether it be engines failing and the rider having his manly bits warmed by flames until he can slow it down and get off, or in incidents like Biaggi's that you posted in another thread where the petrol tank has actually come off as the bike cart-wheels.

Again as for bikers and walls, you have to decide whether you want to be thrown arms and legs flailling with lots of individual impacts at the risk of breaking bones on each for 50-60m or say 40m of the above followed my thump into a nice energy absording foam "air fence".

For my part, the circuits I put on here are designed for Car racing as that's the concept I know best.

[AU N EGL]

Luggi

Have you seen the FIA standards for circuit design?

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regul.../Circuits.aspx

and Appendix O
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regul...tingCodeA.aspx

[AU N EGL]

Back in the spring of 05 I had the dis pleaser of breaking a sway bar end link going through turn 5 at Road Atanta doing about 105 mph.

Needless to say Turn 5 is an uphill left hander, the rear of my car swung around to the right, and next thing I know I was going backwards just as fast as the cars going foward,

I choose to move to the out side of the track ( about 20 feet of grass between the pavement and a wall. ) to slow down.

It was either hit traffic or nudge into the wall at 80 + mph. I choose the wall.

I had purchased and Installed a HANS device the day prior.

Safety is always on drivers and event promotors minds.

[bio]

OFF

Luiggi,
I hope you're watching teh Laguna Seca race, because what they two are doing is just magic.

[LuiggiSpeed]

Originally Posted by bio

OFF

Luiggi,
I hope you're watching teh Laguna Seca race, because what they two are doing is just magic.

WORD!

Rossi is the master of close quarters combat and he did intimidated Stoner to the point he lost concentration.
Stoner may be faster but Rossi was smartest!

[LuiggiSpeed]

SBR, I prefer to dissipate all the energy tumbling over sand or gravel rather than a sudden stop against anything, soft as it may be.

To clear up any confussion,I don't really need 75 mts on every corner but only at the end of a long straight, say , anything that puts me over a buck twenty is a fairly fast section and I's like to see lots of empty real state.Most other areas only need 15-30 meters,that should take care of most high-sides,low-sides and screw ups we do.

BTW,did you get to see Lorenzo's high side today at Laguna?
He eat up the full gravel and stopped just short of the airfence!

[Purist]

Bio, I'm a bit confused as to what you're talking about there. As for Laguna Seca, I don't particularly care for the changes of late, expecially cutting back the hills.

Now, Luiggi, for my comments to you. First off, I can certainly agree that I don't want a track to be a death trap for racers, pit crews, marshalls, or spectators.

I must disagree with you however on a number of points. I've been brought up with a HEAVY emphasis on personal responsibility and that you're responsible for your actions and the corresponding consequences. If you know the risks, and you still choose to take part in racing as things are, then you have chosen to accept the risks involved. To put it another way, if you ignore the advice of an expert in a matter, and sign on the dotted line, you likely don't have recourse if the deal isn't what you thought it was because, even in a case of misrepresentation, you ignored an expert opinion. So, you're just out of luck if you didn't get what you thought you would, at least, that's how it works with contract law.

I like the German philosophy when it comes to the Nurburgring 24 Hours. It's something to the effect that, if you take that blind corner flat-out, in fifth gear, at night, that's your initiative. Just don't come crying to us if you total your car in the process. In general, I don't have the highest opinion of current driver culture. I don't want drivers to have to stare death in the face all the time, but there should be REAL punishment for mistakes and doing "stupid stuff" on track. Sadly, even after Schumacher broke a leg, he continued to do is aggressive chopping maneuvers and such. Hey, if what's being done (penalties and stuff in some cases, if there's punishment at all) isn't getting the point across, then consequences NEED to be increased, AND made automatic (not subject to the decisions of stewards or other officials).

If I was a racer, I'd be FAR more concerned with being taken out of a race, and possibly injured, due to the actions of another driver than something happening to me because I made a mistake, or something broke on the car (after all, driver error is the leading cause of crashes). Mechanical failures happen, and sometimes unpleasant things happen as a result, which would be no different than if you had a significant failure on the highway. The track itself doesn't concern me as much either because I will familiarize myself with the various hazards and where they are, so I know what I'm getting myself into in that realm. However, I don't know what studid thing a fellow competitor might do that could severely impact me, so I'm most worried about reducing the risk of that occurrence to a minimum.

[Purist]

i thought it would be easier to read if I split my comments up a bit.

Before I continue, I will confess that I have done perhaps two hours of driving ever in a car, and none of it was in anger or on public roads. I would LOVE to be a racer, but side effects of a genetic condition prevent that at present. Optic nerve compression from bone overgrowth eliminated much of my eyesight (I cannot pass the eye exam to get a driver's license), and though not as great a concern, my bones are not quite as robust as is normal for a person.

For practical applications, I don't care for the massive run-offs because they allow the vehicle to assume a more direct impact angle with whatever barriers there may be. And in the case of tarmac run-off, the drivers are not punished properly for mistakes. Having such run-offs also substantially decreases the challenge/difficulty of negotiating such corners. I mean, there should damn well be a real intimidation factor and appreciation for what will happen if you go off at corners like Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Turn 8 (Istanbul), Road America's "Kink" and Turn 13, Mosport's Turn 2, etc. And by the same token, this should make successful passage through those corners that much more satisfying and meaningful for competitors.

On a more personal level, I LOVE natural terrain road courses. Having the barriers, and thus the trees, hills, buildings, and people relatively close in is what allows each circuit to develop character, a following, and a soul. I don't care for or about circuits such as Bahrain, and I doubt I ever will. I could say the same for virtually all of Tilke's new circuits and redesigns. I actually like the configurations of Sepang and Istanbul, but everything is pushed so far back from the tracks that that aspect isn't enough to truly redeem them for me.

The massive road racing circuits aside, my top three road courses of all time, in order, would be Spa-Francorchamps (1957-78), Nurburgring Nordschleife (1927-66), and Le Mans (1932-67). I say this because these are my favorite configurations of those circuit, and they are my favorites because I consider them to be the best in providing everything that makes a circuit truly great. Certainly, given tghe circuits as they were then, I would install armco, tire barriers, debris fencing in the most critical areas, and provide grass verges wherever possible such that a car could stop and be off of the racing surface.

In addition, as I mentioned elsewhere, being able to get VERY close to the vehicles at speed is essential for me to be able to get the full effect of being at the track in person that I think I ought to be able to get, and that makes going to the track in person absolutely worth it.

[Purist]

Basically, while I'm definitely NOT looking at how dangerous I can make a track. I absolutely want it to be VERY challenging, flowing, uniform in that flow (that is, the whole circuit seems to fit together right), and soulful. A circuit that isn't, for me, isn't worth the building.

The racer in me wouldn't enjoy a track that didn't fit those criteria. I think I can safely say that I would find doing good laps at the Brands Hatch GP circuit extremely exhilarating and satisfying. From the simulations I've done, I often find the Rockingham international infield circuit (Rockingham, UK) to be rather annoying or even frustrating. Not to mention, as a racer, I would WANT to actually see how I stacked up against the best of all time: Nuvolari, Fangio, Clark, Stewart, and Mario Andretti just to name a few. Frankly, Schumacher didn't impress me nearly as much as his record might indicate he would. Also, while Senna's aggression and focus could be extremely impressive, his self-discipline often was NOT.

In a final note, after the crashes I have seen in chicanes and tight first corners, I do NOT see chicanes as having any redeeming value. And in practical terms, they create that many additional physics problems to deal with every lap. I mean, it seems rather riskier decelerating from 210-215mph three times as opposed to decelerating from 250-255mph just once (I am ,of course, referring to the Mulsanne Straight here). Aside from that, chicanes break up that all-important flow to a circuit that I was talking about. In the case of a track such as Imola, chicanes have neutered a couple of the primary fast corners (Tamburello particularly), and by interrupting the long, high-speed runs, have destroyed virtually all the realistic overtaking opportunities at that track.

I hope I haven't been too long-winded, but I wanted to be clear and thorough in my explanations.

[LuiggiSpeed]

That's allright Purist, I get your point,though I respectfully disagree.

Racing is just another sport,and it's supposed to be fun.I do race,and like I always say,I have buried two friends,because hazardous racing conditions.

I do not see a wall as a challenge to be taken,only an unnesesary risk, I do not see mistakes from racers as actions that need punishment, the only punishment should be loosing a position or a race,not life.But that's just me.

I tend to be more practical than idealist.

[Purist]

It's more that, from a practical standpoint, if "penalties" for mistakes become lax, the temptation to do "stupid stuff" on track becomes that much stronger. Drivers used to go off at challenging corners, and would be out of the race, but were not injured or anything like that in a great majority of cases.

A wall is a challenge in so much as, if it's not there, you would contemplate attempting maneuvers that you wouldn't even dream of if the wall was there. And, assuming you have respect for your fellow competitors, you wouldn't dream of aggressively blocking or chopping in those places either, so that you wouldn't risk putting that driver/rider into said wall.

The most unfortunate thing I see in racing of late is that, without those "hazards", drivers just don't seem to have the same sort of on-track respect for one another as used to be the case, and that's sad. The problem is, unless those barriers are in place, and thus FORCE competitors to show that respect, I don't see the culture changing for the better. Tony Stewart in 2006 or 2007 before Daytona made a comment about driving and that it would get someone killed if it didn't improve. Then, in that very Daytona 500, he almost ran Matt Kenseth off the back STRAIGHT, at speed (~185-190mph). And I've seen plenty of incidents in recent years of guys running other racers off the track in corners on road courses: most famous of these probably being Alonso running wide and forcing Hamilton even further onto the run-off at the exit of La Source than he himself had gone.

And from a less practical perspective, I think circuits where the barriers aren't so far away have a MUCH better/stronger atmosphere. I much prefer how Spa was in 1985 from that standpoint compared to how it is now, and I quite confident that some tires on the outside of Eau Rouge very well could have saved Stefan Bellof in his crash during the 1000km that year.

[LuiggiSpeed]

Originally Posted by Purist

... if "penalties" for mistakes become lax, the temptation to do "stupid stuff" on track becomes that much stronger.
A wall is a challenge in so much as, if it's not there, you would contemplate attempting maneuvers that you wouldn't even dream of if the wall was there. And, assuming you have respect for your fellow competitors, you wouldn't dream of aggressively blocking or chopping in those places either, so that you wouldn't risk putting that driver/rider into said wall.

No, in fact, the lack of walls and dangerous stuff only encourages racers to push harder and further,thus uppering the level of performance.The kind of racing we saw last Sunday on Laguna Seca,for example,would not be possible if Stoner and Rossi were thinking about that wall,in the back of their heads,they would have to be too cautious,racing would be a parade,or a ballet of coreographed moves.

The most unfortunate thing I see in racing of late is that, without those "hazards", drivers just don't seem to have the same sort of on-track respect for one another as used to be the case, and that's sad. The problem is, unless those barriers are in place, and thus FORCE competitors to show that respect, I don't see the culture changing for the better.

The fact is, when people race,adrenaline flows at a much higher rate and the decision making process is highly influenced by the lack of oxigen and the abundance of testosterone,wich is why you see so many incidents where folks don't give way to the fellow competitor,in fact,you're not supposed to give way,and they go as far as running off the track when they try to occupate the same space at the same time,physics won't allow for that. Your point is like saying a boxing match should be staged on a ring surrounded by barb wire,or a soccer game should execute the losing team,just to satisfy a secret morbic desire(?).C'mon,it's the 21st century,people don't go around in horses wearing armour.

There's nothing cavalier about crashing into walls or unnesesary dangers on racing dude, it's just a sport.Some racers,like me, only race on a amateur or semi-pro league,and we have to go back to work on Monday.The thing is that circuits are getting safer every day,promotors and designers are bettering safety systems,circuits get more run-off,racers group themselves into safety commisions and so on,they can't be all wrong.

[AU N EGL]

Umm Guys

If your looking at walls, guess where you drive ? Into the wall

You steer and drive where you look. So dont LOOK AT THE WALLS.

Keep your heads UP and LOOK up the track.

Road Atlanta's walls are close in some places, I think. But I dont look at walls, I look UP THE track and where I want to be. Then drive there.

[Purist]

Good point AU N EGL.

Luiggi, no, I don't want to see people killed in racing, though the boxing thing amused me a bit as I don't really care for it in general. Then again, I don't think motor racing ought to be reduced to the level of "merely a game", as that famous quote (whether Hemmingway or not) goes. And trust me, if you think I'm a firebrand, you ought to get into a discussion with "Bob Riebe" on this forum. I must say, I do find your views ironic given your signature.

As for the racing itself, no, a driver shouldn't just give up or roll over, but if the overtaking driver gets substantially alongside heading toward a single-file corner, the guy being overtaken should respectfully give way. On the other side, the one doing the overtaking has that responsibility to get cleanly alongside, not pass using sheer banzai moves, and to not run the other guy off the road on corner exit.

I can tell you that races way back when were NOT parades, and the drivers, even with the adrenaline flowing, still managed to display reasonable on-track behavior. You CAN CHOOSE to channels those hormones into pure anger, frustration, or whatever, or you can channel that into your focus on the task at hand.

The old slipstreaming battles at Reims and Monza were just insane. You'd pass someone, get passed, then come back and pass again (maybe get two or three cars in a maneuver if you had the timing right and a good run). Past the pits at Reims, you'd see the F1 cars go by three abreast, and at Monza, it could be four abreast.

The drivers ran each other and themselves very hard. Do you think Nuvolari won the 1935 German GP at the Nurburgring by taking it easy?! He was in an 8C Alfa Romeo that was probably 200hp down on what the "Silver Arrows" were making, and had a chassis that was three years out of date.

Then you have Fangio, who was a master in every sense. He would drift his Mercedes, Ferrari, or Maserati through the first turn at Reims at ~160-165mph, on every lap; any other driver at the time was happy to do that once or twice during the whole GP weekend. Fangio did much the same through the esses after start/finish at Rouen in 1957. There's a great photo of him in the Maserati 250F, with the car 20-30 degrees off of where it looks like he should be pointed, and he's controlling this at 130+mph. Two races later, Fangio drove what's considered his best race, and one of the greatest F1 races ever. Rob Walker wrote in his notebook about what he saw after the race when he went around the track to pick up his stranded car. Fangio, in using everything he could to bring the gap to the Ferraris down after his long pit stop, had dropped wheels off the pavement and left trails of dust, pebbles, and sand at virtually every corner around the 14.167-mile Nordschleife as he threw that Maserati around in pursuit of the top three runners.

In 1966, John Surtees and Jochen Rindt had a knock-down-drag-out battle for the lead at the appallingly treacherous (due to heavy rain) Belgian GP. From the drivers, they were sometimes running side-by-side while hydroplaning down much of the Masta Straight at 170-180+mph. In the final result, they were less than a minute apart, in a race that saw only 7 cars finish even the first lap. Also at Spa, you had the front row Porsche 917s bounce off each other in Eau Rouge on the first lap, and then continue to harrass one another during the 1970 1000km.

At Monza in 1971, there was a spectacular slipstreaming battle that saw the top five cross the line within a second of one another.

And my point is? Having those barriers in closer is NOT going to stop close battling in racing, but should give the drivers much more of a healthy sense of precaution while on the track.

[Fish_Flake]

Don't forget the Italian Grand Prix of 1967. Jim Clark punctured a tire in the early going, forcing him to lose a lap in the pits. By mastering the Monza slipstream, driving to the limit of adhesion, Clark matched his pole speed and lap record time and time again. Add a fortuitous engine failure by Graham Hill with 10 laps to go, Clark not only made his lap back, but cruised by Jack Brabham and John Surtees (who were having a monumental battle with themselves for second place and then the lead after Hill's retirement) to capture the apparent win. On the final lap, though, Clark ran out of fuel, and that battle between Brabham and Surtees (who had been passing and repassing each other throughout the race distance) became one for the victory again. Brabham thought he had the race won when he overtook Surtees at the Parabolica, but he ran wide over the oil from Hill's blown engine, and Surtees then ducked inside to nip Brabham in the dragrace to the line.

[bio]

AU N EGL,

I doubt Senna or Ratzenberger was looking at the walls.

[LuiggiSpeed]

the motto of the motorcyclist:LOOK WHERE YOU WANT TO GO!

[Purist]

Bio, those were mechanical failures at Imola, by all appearances. Senna would have been helped perhaps by lower curbing and a tire barrier, but the real culprit there was that errant suspension member that did the deed. Thus, what caused his death was a car design issue and NOT a track configuration or run-off issue. Make the cockpit surround higher, like on an early '80s Indycar.

Given more recent accidents, and Rubens' crash earlier that weekend, Ratzenberger could have done with the cars having better side impact protection, and a tire wall wouldn't have gone amiss. Even so, it's still a case of car design, and perhaps some barrier upgrades, but NOT the wholesale changes that have precluded a lot of actual racing from occurring there. Not to mention, those chicanes mess up the circuit's flow and provide scope for some rather nasty opening lap crashes (yeah, I'm sure the drivers love overcooking it and accidentlly launching into barrel-rolls or cart-wheels off into the gravel). Even if you took out Variente Bassa, and a rather dodgy pit entry in my book, I don't think the profile of the Tamburello chicane would allow for much overtaking there anyway.

The point is, ALL three of those crashes in 1994 should have been perfectly surviveable WITHOUT adsurdly large run-offs, but rather by having a few modified (more absorbing) barriers and modified car structures. Rubens' crash was the most violent (most sudden stop of the three), and he lived, fully recovered, and is still in F1 today.

[Yannick]

Back in 1994, after having seen the deadly crash of Roland Ratzenberger live on TV (and repeated over and over during the coverage of that qualifying session), I was completely devastated and ready to abandon my interest in motor racing for good. I was unable to watch the race the next day, and instead went with my parents to meet a family friend on her birthday. (I was 16 at the time, and had already designed some tracks.) Upon returning home, my grandma broke the news that Senna had died in the race, and I was relieved to not have seen the race. The Wendlinger accident at the next race shocked again, having both seen Senna and Wendlinger before in person during the pitlane walk on Thursday in Spa, 1993.
It took me a while to cope with what happened, and redesigning my own tracks with safety in mind was very helpful, so that these days, I can enjoy watching a car race again.
I don't like ovals that much, either, but the invention of the SAFER barrier has helped a lot in making ovals safer (no pun intended).
I somehow doubt the effect of tarmac runoff in case of a brake failure or stuck throttle, where a car would head straight on, so I consider this trend in current track design somewhat questionable, especially when there's a highspeed section approaching the corner.
I'm not an expert on safety features, but I try to do my best with my own tracks, and post them on here to find out if there might still be some issues left.
Still, some of my conceptualist designs are rather outrageous, and are meant as fantasy tracks only, but I also try to make them safe somehow. But it's questionable whether a SAFER barrier is of any use for an old-style high-rise banking.
Btw have you seen the Valencia street track? What do you think of the runoff for Turn 1?

[AU N EGL]

Mechanical Failures, pushing that 10.5 / 10s is one thing, but 11/10s may be what causes the RED MIST and crashing.

tires just giving out, a few drops of oil on the track or ??? Chit happens.

[Purist]

The Wendlinger crash looked like a side-impact issue as well, and I'm not certain on how well that's been addressed since then. I do recall one of the Jordans having a similar looking crash at Monaco in 2002, though I'm not sure how the driver was afterwards.

[LuiggiSpeed]

Bio, those were mechanical failures at Imola, by all appearances. Senna would have been helped perhaps by lower curbing and a tire barrier, but the real culprit there was that errant suspension member that did the deed. Thus, what caused his death was a car design issue and NOT a track configuration or run-off issue.

That is exactly why I put "mechanical failure" as the prime reason for overdesigned tracks,had they've been racing in Quatar, he would still fight another day. That's about the best argument in favor of safely designed circuis.THX!

[Purist]

What I'm saying is you should make the cars and barriers themselves safer. Thus, the circuits don't have to be glorified sandboxes, with run-offs so large I can't justify going to a race at such a track, but the danger to the people involved is still minimized.

So does this mean we shouldn't build any more "natural terrain" road courses, because they can't necessarily be "made" as safe as you're suggesting?

BTW, if safety really was always #1, Monaco and Macau would have been discontinued decades ago, not to mention the Isle of Man TT.

You said earlier that drivers could get that red mist going, or just not be paying attention to all the things they should. On the other hand, you said if the walls were in close that that would inhibit them by it just being there in the backs of their minds. That doesn't really jive or make sense. Either the drivers are being properly cognizant of their situation, or they're not. So, those walls either will or they won't cause a given driver to hesitate, but you can't have it both ways. It just doesn't work like that.

Oh, and if you really are going to factor in mechanical failures, which can cause a car to noticeably change direction even on a straight, you'll NEED those large run-offs along both sides of every straight as well to make track THAT safe.

And as I've said, I NEED to be within a certain distance of the cars at speed in order to actually SEE and identify them. It doesn't do me any good if I can just see the cars, but don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of telling which cars I'm looking at and thus what is actually happening in the race.