[WEC] BR1 Dallara LMP1

[Akrapovic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH_8EqwJY0E

This is why there is no gravel trap at that exact spot.

[Purist]

Paved run-off doesn't do much to slow cars, particularly when they're out of control.

Not causing damage or a race intervention is a rather tertiary concern safety-wise after injury to participants and spectators.

Better the car rolls than comes to a hard, sudden stop.

A number of incidents where cars went over gravel traps have been because of grading issues, not anything to do with the gravel trap being deficient.

And in the end, the other consequences of paved run-off (lowered driving standards leading to more crashes) lead me to regard it as not worth it, even with the allure of supposedly "prettier" outcomes (fewer race interventions). If driving standards improved again, it wouldn't surprise me if damage from going off, in absolute terms across all accidents, didn't go up in the end after all.

As for Zonta, the car structure did its job and he exited the car under his own power. I've seen too many crashes that looked equally bad, or worse, on a range of track types, for that one to deter me. These things happen, and the consequences of that one going wrong are certainly not worse than the consequences of the BR1 incident really going wrong would have been. So, exactly what have we actually gained?

I'd rather have meaningful consequences for doing something stupid, and drivers having greater mutual respect because of it, even if that means more messed up bodywork and Safety Cars in the short term.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Sorry there buddy, but reality has proven you wrong. No matter how much you dislike it, paved runoff is actually safer.

[Purist]

I don't agree, especially when factoring in derivative consequences. And human marshals have proven incapable/unwilling to sufficiently police track limits with the stuff. For track bounds to be effective, they must be unconditional.

Additionally, it takes away the very ability to sense speed and maneuverability, because there's no discernible texture and all frames of reference are pushed back. So it's not just a matter of aesthetics, but a matter of being robbed of the very ability to sense for oneself what is going on.

Furthermore, you won't convince people to watch races at such tracks on hot days, because the heat convection will make it freakin' miserable to do so. Maybe Europe gets off easy because of it latitude, but over here, you can get 90-degree days in Wisconsin (Road America), and if the track is surrounded by a parking lot, it's going to feel like 100-110. In the early 2000s, Portland had a few race weekends where it was hovering around 100 for the highs. Also, for a good part of the US, in summer, dew points may not drop below 70 degrees for weeks on end, even at night.

So people will be turned off by that, and also, from a primal point of view, gray is associated with stone, and death, while green is associated with plants/wood, and thus, life.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Purist

Paved run-off doesn't do much to slow cars, particularly when they're out of control.

Yes they do. There is more grip on pavement to slow cars down, which is particularly more effective at slowing a car down when the tires are not compromised since the BRAKES will be more effective.

Better the car rolls than comes to a hard, sudden stop.

Rolling is not safer than sliding to a stop. Paved runoffs have been PROVEN to be safer, no matter how much you want to argue otherwise. They wouldn't be getting implemented so frequently if they weren't.

As for preventing drivers from going wide, that's why they're doing things like these thicker lines of paint - to ensure that going wide cannot provide an advantage.

[Purist]

Oh, they WOULD do it if there's corporate pressure not to tear up manufacturers' precious F1 and LMP1 cars, even if it really doesn't provide better outcomes overall. It could easily be just another one of those "pretty" band-aids to bolster brand image.

You say the brakes still work, but drivers don't do that; they mash it, thinking they can get right back into the action, and sometimes smash right into a wall or a competitor attempting to do so, because a loss of control has NOT FORCED them to relent. It's a case of theory and reality not matching up.

I've SEEN plenty of examples of cars being stopped by gravel in FAR LESS distance than I've ever seen when a car careers off onto paved run-off.

I didn't say rolling is safer than sliding to a stop. I said it's safer than a hard, sudden stop, which is true. Please don't put incorrect assertions in my mouth. The paved run-off FAILED to keep Pietro Fittipaldi from having that hard, sudden stop.

And those bumps you mentioned may well have triggered the BR1 flip. Furthermore, the curbs at Les Combes caused a flip in F3 Open in 2013, and the complacent drivers at the back didn't think it important enough to pay attention on the run down to Pouhon, causing a hell of a pileup. That complacency is in no small part due to the paved run-offs they've gotten used to using, abusing, and getting away with doing so. There is yet another reason where paved run-offs make racing MORE dangerous.

As for enforcement, the FIA/FOM shot itself in the foot in 2012 with its response to Romain Grosjean after the mess on the start of that year's Belgian GP. They as much as said that upitty drivers who mess with more established drivers will get harsher treatment. And the unwritten upshot would be that established drivers will implicitly be permitted to get away with more than the lesser-known newcomers.

IMSA had a couple of nasty accidents in 2014 from drivers not paying attention or not respecting marshals' signals when rejoining the track from a connected, paved surface. It happened on the exit of Turn 16 at Sebring during the 12 Hours, tearing up not only the car that went off the designated track surface, but a couple more as well. And then there was the practice crash at Watkins Glen, when a driver rejoining smashed into the side of another car on the entry to Turn 11. So how was anybody safer there? And also, how did anybody's checkbooks make it out in better shape because of what those paved areas allowed to happen?

And you can say, "well, the marshals and officials need to crack down more". But thqt ISN'T happening in reality, certainly not to the extent it needs to, and more to the point, at tracks where the stuff is everywhere, it's humanly impossible to police it adequately.

When Kyle Busch broke his leg at Daytona, he was sliding on pavement for at least 80% of his trip into the wall anyway. When Denny Hamlin broke his back at Fontana, he had the throttle floored almost the entire way into the inside wall.

And don't forget, a handful of posts back, I indicated a willingness to look at taking Eau Rouge-Raidillon and Blanchimont back to older, slower forms. And in the case of Eau Rouge, this could change the target zone for that combination, as well as substantially reducing the chances of any car taking off there again. So I'm hardly suggesting taking tracks back to a state like how they were in the 1960s.

I'm glad you refrained from referencing that silly anecdote about cars accelerating on wet grass, which, if there's no added impetus being provided, is physically impossible.

[Adam43]

So are you suggesting that F1 and LMP1 teams force a situation that is less safe? They are willing to risk people for what reason?

[Purist]

The biggest problem is that you can't honestly tell me that racing drivers are going to react even remotely the way you think they ideally should. As such, measures must be in place to contain them in those extreme cases where it can be done, and to make those measures as unconditional as possible. Paved run-off has proven utterly ineffective in this regard, and beyond that, once you reach a critical mass of the stuff, driver complacency will spread to their behavior on tracks that don't have the stuff, which is when you REALLY get into trouble.

As to the blowover by the BR1, it should just be bloody obvious that having bumps in the run-off area, whatever kind it may be, of a corner taken at, what, 180 mph, is a TERRIBLE idea, and invites something to go VERY wrong. (It's kind of like that trench alongside the start of the Wellington Straight that Raikkonen found a few years back in the British GP.)

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Purist

Additionally, it takes away the very ability to sense speed and maneuverability, because there's no discernible texture and all frames of reference are pushed back. So it's not just a matter of aesthetics, but a matter of being robbed of the very ability to sense for oneself what is going on.

Are you saying this from experience? The cars still look silly fast through there.

[Purist]

Not at all, Adam, it's just not nearly as front-and-center in their thinking as it was years or decades ago. A while back, someone commented that the uniform starting grids and front straights at F1 circuits generally were likely in large part the product of a push to give a unified appearance to the F1 brand. And I don't recall heavy criticism of that comment back then.

I also can't rule out that some of those executives equate the convenience of not getting their cars, or shoes, loaded down with gravel with an increased "sense of safety". And if I'm perfectly blunt, I don't necessarily expect the corporate executives to fully hear out the motorsport safety experts, and even if they do, those more informed about motorsport may feel an implied pressure from their financial "masters" to do certain things that aren't the best option. The halo certainly strikes me as rushed and underresearched. We KNOW it's NOT going to stop something like what happened to Massa in Hungary in 2009; the gaps are WAY too large to prevent another spring from doing exactly the same thing.

Articus, Spa is less of an issue because of the comparatively absurd elevation changes and unusually dense forest (unusual for what normally might surround a racetrack). So the context at the circuit is much stronger than at most. Having said that, Eau Rouge and Raidillon are less impressive, and Pouhon and Blanchimont are especially less imposing now than they were. (The first time I saw a Belgian GP in period was 2000.) It's a bad sign when the most impressive speed shot of Blanchimont is from the helicopter, rather than on the ground. (Those aerial shots are frequently harder for me, because it's more difficult even to just identify the cars.)

(And no, I wish people would understand the nuance. I don't have an express desire to see crashes, but having a "sense of danger", that something readily can go wrong and end a driver's race, does make the experience more meaningful, even if it's just spectating. Simply finishing a lap in rFactor 2 of Spa 1966 was the most thrilling gaming experience I've ever had, and I wasn't bothered by the fact it took me about an hour, and a bunch of failed attempts, to do it.)

Basically, Spa is barely the tip of the iceberg, but for tracks with weaker context, the paved run-off can obliterate that sense of speed and consequence. Heck, it can do so at some tracks WITH real context; I don't find Turns 2, 8, and 9 at Mosport to be that exciting anymore. And as for those newer tracks with weaker context, I've pointed out elsewhere that I don't miss Austin from the IMSA schedule (The Esses are another place where the helo shot is the best for sense of speed).

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Purist

The biggest problem is that you can't honestly tell me that racing drivers are going to react even remotely the way you think they ideally should.

Not relevant. Paved runoffs areas are more effective at slowing down an out of control car even when the drivers aren't responding the way they ideally should be.

All research has consistently proven that paved runoff areas are the safest option. This is the ONLY reason they are becoming so prevalent. The benefits of tearing up less equipment are just a bonus.

[Purist]

FF, in hundreds, if not thousands, of races, I've seen nothing in the actual coverage that demonstrates to me that paved run-off slows an out-of-control vehicle better than gravel. And yeah, it is relevant if a driver hits the gas instread of the brake, because, if you're right and there is more traction, they just accelerate into the wall or another competitor even faster.

And just because someone actually does due something for "safety", that doesn't mean it isn't an unwarranted or foolish kneejerk reaction. It also doesn't mean it's going to work; the first restrictor-plate race in 1987 had a car leave its wheels.

And thinking about the math, even if gravel had only, say, a tenth of the traction force applied compared to the tarmac, when that force is applied to 100 times the surface area, instead of just those four, tiny contact patches, the deceleration will still be greater with the gravel.

(And yes, for me, in terms of games/sports, it's pretty much auto racing or bust. Nothing else offers the size of static visual target (i.e. a car) onto which I can focus my (limited) eyesight. The court/field is usually too "busy" for me to reliably actually see the basketball or football itself. Hockey pucks are freakin' tiny, even if they're black on white ice. Also, outside of racing, you only see two teams at once, rather tan all the competitors. Without that level and frequency of sensory anchoring, well, I just haven't developed a favorite NBA, NFL, NHL, or even EPL team or player.)

(Even now, I don't have a standout favorite in NASCAR or IndyCar, with a couple of recent retirements (or at least, retirement from a full-time ride in the series). Seb is kind of fading as my standout favorite in F1, and about the only one who isn't so polished that I just pass over him is Max. And as for being able to identify a driver, or any athlete, actor, musician, or what-have-you visually by their face, not a snowball's chance in you know where, pretty much. They have to either be EXTREMELY distinctive, or be on the TV screen practically every single day.)

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Well, at least it's clear you didn't choose your username ironically

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Purist

FF, in hundreds, if not thousands, of races, I've seen nothing in the actual coverage that demonstrates to me that paved run-off slows an out-of-control vehicle better than gravel.

So? That doesn't mean jack. The broadcasters' job isn't to fill you in one on every little detail about track design, it's to cover the race.

And yeah, it is relevant if a driver hits the gas instread of the brake, because, if you're right and there is more traction, they just accelerate into the wall or another competitor even faster.

If a car is out of control, hitting the accelerator isn't going to accelerate it into the wall because it won't be facing the direction of travel.

And just because someone actually does due something for "safety", that doesn't mean it isn't an unwarranted or foolish kneejerk reaction.

And there we go. Accusations of a safety move being a knee-jerk reaction. The go-to statement of people who haven't actually done any research.

And thinking about the math, even if gravel had only, say, a tenth of the traction force applied compared to the tarmac, when that force is applied to 100 times the surface area, instead of just those four, tiny contact patches, the deceleration will still be greater with the gravel.

Congratulations, you just identified WHY gravel is less safe; It decelerates cars FASTER. The faster the rate of deceleration, the higher the risk of injury to the driver.

[Purist]

I'm not relying on the commentators to tell me about the track design. I'll see how the race goes for myself, and analyze what actually happens.

Besides, the commentators are probably contractually obligated not to say anything other than glowing remarks about the circuit, especially after this gem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdCDkfEKkUI

A key part of the argument has been that drivers WON'T lose control if they're on paved run-off, as opposed to grass or gravel. So, in that state, it DOES matter, a lot, which pedal the driver hits.

Ah, because the "authorities" are absolutely perfect and could never possibly make a mistake. It's funny, when I've made some comments in the past, I've been told that I'm too naive, or that I maybe need to have a more cynical view, that motives aren't always so pure. So when I take the advice, people still aren't happy. I guess I'm always supposed to leave it to someone else to judge?

Yes, the person who has cited over half a dozen specific instances hasn't done any research, while the person who has cited none has. I see...

Not when the alternative is hitting a wall at much higher speed. Seriously, this is a solution in search of a problem. I think I can say that I truly have NEVER heard a driver say "The gravel slowed me down too fast". This also completely undermines the whole "less damage" argument, because if the car stops short of the barriers, less damage is going to be done than if it hits them because it wasn't sufficiently arrested. Really, are you trying to make me laugh?

[TzeiTzei]

Unfortunately tarmac is the safest option. There is no way around it.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Purist

A key part of the argument has been that drivers WON'T lose control if they're on paved run-off, as opposed to grass or gravel.

Umm...Yes, they will. Generally speaking, a car only goes off the track far enough to be in danger of hitting a barrier if it's already out of control.

So, in that state, it DOES matter, a lot, which pedal the driver hits.

Racing drivers, even the amateurs, are not generally incompetent enough to make that error. In some racecars it's physically impossible to make the mistake.

So while a possibility, it's such a minute issue as to be nonexistent.

And even then, any driver who didn't notice his mistake and switch to the brake long before he hit the wall is not of sufficient skill to pass a competition test. They're still more likely to hit the wall at a slower speed than they'd hit the gravel trap - assuming they hit the wall at all.

Ah, because the "authorities" are absolutely perfect and could never possibly make a mistake.

When said authorities are repeatedly backed up by research, physics, and reality, you can be pretty confident they haven't made a mistake.

Yes, the person who has cited over half a dozen specific instances hasn't done any research, while the person who has cited none has. I see...

You haven't cited any instances that prove your claims at all - every single one either proves nothing or proves the opposite of your claim. Why should I bother providing examples when you provide them for me?

Not when the alternative is hitting a wall at much higher speed.

Better to hit a tire wall at 150MPH than a gravel trap at 180.

The only way a car would hit the wall faster than the gravel trap is if the car was going STRAIGHT at it, and the accelerator being floored the entire way. That simply won't happen - even if the driver messes up and hits the accelerator instead of the brake(which, despite my willingness to concede the possibility, is still rare to the point of being effectively nonexistence), he'll still be TURNING the car away from the wall, which will prevent the kind of impact you're worried about.

Seriously, this is a solution in search of a problem.

No, it is not. This is a solution to a problem that has been brought up repeatedly over the decades. The only reason gravel traps have persisted this long as due to what turned out to be an erroneous belief that they protected riders on motorcycle crashes, but testing has proven that to not be the case. (having no vehicle to protect them, it was found the riders flung into gravel/sand traps are more likely to suffer injuries -especially to shoulder and elbow joints- from their bodies digging into the soft surface and being wrenched around as they roll through it than from just hitting the pavement)

I think I can say that I truly have NEVER heard a driver say "The gravel slowed me down too fast".

I have. Many times. Usually attached to a story of a broken bone caused directly by the rolling that resulted from hitting the gravel so hard.

This also completely undermines the whole "less damage" argument, because if the car stops short of the barriers, less damage is going to be done than if it hits them because it wasn't sufficiently arrested.

The whole point of this is that the paved runoff is less likely to result in the car hitting anything to begin with. I don't get what's so hard for you to comprehend about that.

If there's a gravel trap right outside the track and your car goes off, you're guaranteed to hit something. Period. End of discussion. If the runoff area is paved, you can actually PREVENT the car from hitting anything.

That's the point you're refusing too comprehend - but you'd rather focus on the risks of what happens when a driver mixes up the pedals than actually think about the entire point of the

Really, are you trying to make me laugh?

If you're laughing at this matter then you're only proving that you're actively refusing to consider the facts and do your own research.

Seriously, find me an example that proves paved runoffs are more dangerous.

And I don't mean cases where a car still hit the wall going off a paved runoff - you'll find plenty of those(paved runoffs are not a magic solution to all possible incidents, after all). I mean a situation where it is far, FAR more likely that the results would have been less severe if he'd hit a gravel trap right after going off the track.

I'll leave you with an example of where a paved runoff would have likely made for a far LESS severe crash:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW3NDGk6YQE

In this incident, the gravel did NOTHING to arrest the speed of the car, just bouncing across it. But the tires were on the ground right up until it HIT the gravel trap. Had that area been paved, that car would have slowed MUCH more. At the speed it left the track, the Audi likely would have still reached the wall, but it certainly would not have hit THAT hard.

[Purist]

Safest by what measure?

FF already admitted that it's less effective at arresting vehicles.

And nobody has directly addressed the issue of declining driver discipline. Besides that, none of the artificial methods tried so far have worked properly, and with the bump stripes and sausage curbs, we've seen both potentially, or definitely, launch cars. It doesn't take a genius to realize that an obstacle in the middle of a run-off area is far from a bright idea.

Sorry, but nobody has offered a logically consistent, satisfactory explanation for HOW paved run-off is "better", or one that even stands up to the question of IF it is "better". And while you guys may be tired of my persistence, that's not half as tired as I am of getting the run-around. Okay?

[Purist]

Now you've contradicted yourself; earlier you said gravel decelerates the vehicle faster than pavement, in which case, you're LESS likely to hit a wall.

Phillip Island hardly has any paved run-off, and half the lap at Jerez; none of it is to the extent we see with F1. There are a number of other bike circuits I could point to as well. It's always been F1, not MotoGP, that's led the charge for paved run-offs.

I'm not talking about "mixing up pedals"; I'm talking about a driver still feeling that he's at least partway in control and mashing the gas with the intent to lose as little time as possible in getting back to the racing surface/line, and catching a barrier in his overexuberance.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you're demanding perfection from gravel traps, and any little thing that goes wrong is just proof that every track should be irrevocably turned into a soulless parking lot. But I see no admission of any imperfection with pavement. A reasoned argument generally does mention real drawbacks too.

You're treating gravel like it's a concrete barrier, and it's NOT.

Paved run-off FAILED to stop Kyle Busch, Denny Hamlin, and that XFinity car that powered all the way into the inside wall on the back straight at Talladega. I'm pretty sure Adrian Fernandez appreciated the gravel outside Turn 4 at Mid Ohio when his throttle stuck open during the CART race in 2001. Again, the paved run-off failed to sufficiently arrest Pietro Fittipaldi. There wouldn't have been space for Grosjean to go up the inside at La Source without the grasscrete, and he likely wouldn't have thought he could bail and go wide without the paving outside the turn. Gravel would have reduced te speed of the BR1, quite possibly preventing the liftoff; the very measures meant to mitigate short-cutting may have caused the liftoff, and did cause the F3 flip in 2013. The complacency in no small part caused by the presence of paved run-off at any number of circuits played into the crash that followed when drivers didn't acknowledge the Safety Car deployment. There was that mess both at Monza and Spa in FIA F3 in 2015, the result of more complacency.

And it's strange, those turns at Le Mans are part of the permanent, Bugatti Circuit. It's principally meant for bikes; that change was made in 2002 expressly for the bikes. If gravel was so bad, especially for bikes, it wouldn't have been left there for 15 years.

As for how I look at laying things out, anywhere there's space, have a few meters of grass, so small errors DON'T get you stuck in a gravel trap.

[Adam43]

Can I suggest rather than trying to be right, the primary objective of discussion is trying to understand the other viewpoints and move the discuss on. Others may join in too if that is the case.

Also reduce the unsubstantiated conjecture. Although it is making some posts so long that it would slow any car down enough before the barriers.

[Adam43]

Here is an interview with the Tilke.
https://www.eastwoodadvertiser.co.uk...8a52ce0f6f544/

In it he says that tarmac runoffs can be a third shorter to stop the car.

It also strikes me that depending on the accident different solutions are best. Trouble is you don’t have time to tarmac the runoff or lay a gravel trap from the point the accident starts to when it ends.

This does mean that whatever solution you will be able to find examples where the other was best.

I don’t think the best solution exists in every situation as it is impossible to be perfect here. Time, resources, wrong assumptions all play a part in everything in life (apart from retrospective Internet forum postings). However I do not doubt that the actions taken with regard to runoffs are driven by safety concerns and not by any other agenda.

(I have left out the valid discussion about sensible levels of safety/danger in motorsport and being penalised for mistakes, as the topic seems to be purely what works best from a safety point of view).

[Akrapovic]

I don't like examples of tarmac run off not working. It's picking and choosing evidence. There's also plenty of times a car has skimmed over a gravel traps and not scrubbed off any speed. I also disagree that a car rolling is not a big problem - in a car where the drivers head is exposed, it's a *huge* issue as now the driver is more exposed. Also, when a car is in the air it's not losing much speed. All you have acting on the car is aero drag, and not friction from the gravel trap.

Accidents are complicated. I don't think there's a one-size fits all. As much as I don't like how much abuse tarmac run off gets (and how ugly it is), and as much as I want grass and gravel back...it is more dangerous.

Actual question: I wonder I wonder if people had these discussions in the 70s and 80s when they got rid of that insane fencing in run offs, where they actually put wooden posts with chicken wire fencing up. I wonder if some people wanted that kept, as it's probably quite effective at slowing a vehicle.

[S griffin]

Anyway back on topic, Jenson has completed his first test with the Dallara

[Tique]

And they muist be quite busy at the factory in order to produce the tubs and spare parts needed for LM

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Purist

Now you've contradicted yourself; earlier you said gravel decelerates the vehicle faster than pavement, in which case, you're LESS likely to hit a wall.

No, I haven't contradicted myself at all. You're still ignoring the primary problem: Because the gravel arrests the car's momentum faster, it creates a situation where injury is MORE LIKELY.

I can't emphasize this enough: Stopping the cars quickly is a BAD THING. That's when injuries can occur. That's why bare concrete walls are so dangerous. I simply do not understand why you refuse to comprehend this basic concept - literally every safety concept in racing, is built around this fact.

I'm not talking about "mixing up pedals"; I'm talking about a driver still feeling that he's at least partway in control and mashing the gas with the intent to lose as little time as possible in getting back to the racing surface/line, and catching a barrier in his overexuberance.

So you're saying going slightly off line is the same as spearing off the track? News flash: When cars go wide enough to make hitting the barrier real possibility, racers don't deliberately keep their foot on the throttle because there is ZERO chance that will get them back on the track safely. It's basic racecraft. We're not talking about dropping a couple wheels outside the line here.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you're demanding perfection from gravel traps,

Not even close. But by your own admission, they stop cars sooner. Faster deceleration = greater risk of injury. It's better than, say, a grass runoff that will barely allow a car to slow at all, but that doesn't mean it's better than the paved runoff.

But I see no admission of any imperfection with pavement. A reasoned argument generally does mention real drawbacks too.

I recommend you follow your own advice on this. You have consistently ignored the main point of risk of gravel traps in order to try and twist my point around to fit your narrative.

The reason I have not admitted any imperfections is because there are NONE. It's not going to prevent all injuries or serious crashes, no, but there is no solution that ever will. However, insofar as it relates to other options, there are no imperfections.

You're treating gravel like it's a concrete barrier, and it's NOT.

No, but it's still stopping cars faster than gravel does, which creates higher potential for injury.

Paved run-off FAILED to stop Kyle Busch, Denny Hamlin, and that XFinity car that powered all the way into the inside wall on the back straight at Talladega. I'm pretty sure Adrian Fernandez appreciated the gravel outside Turn 4 at Mid Ohio when his throttle stuck open during the CART race in 2001. Again, the paved run-off failed to sufficiently arrest Pietro Fittipaldi. There wouldn't have been space for Grosjean to go up the inside at La Source without the grasscrete, and he likely wouldn't have thought he could bail and go wide without the paving outside the turn. Gravel would have reduced te speed of the BR1, quite possibly preventing the liftoff; the very measures meant to mitigate short-cutting may have caused the liftoff, and did cause the F3 flip in 2013. The complacency in no small part caused by the presence of paved run-off at any number of circuits played into the crash that followed when drivers didn't acknowledge the Safety Car deployment. There was that mess both at Monza and Spa in FIA F3 in 2015, the result of more complacency.

Out of all those incidents, the only one that bears any weight is Adrian Fernandez's stuck throttle. And I hate to break it to you, but it STILL doesn't prove anything for one simple reason: Brakes, by design, overpower the throttle of a car. If the runoff had been paved it is entirely possible he would have slowed to a near stop before reaching the wall. In fact, I can be reasonably sure he would have hit the wall with less force had the runoff been paved because just like McNish in the clip I linked, his car SKIPPED across the gravel trap - it only just started to catch the gravel right before impact with the wall. Worst case scenario, the incident would have been almost identical.

None of the other incidents you cite were affected by the paved runoff in any negative way. A couple may have been caused by the painting used on said runoff, but that is NOT the same as being caused by the paved runoff in and of itself. The fact that the paved runoffs didn't prevent a car from hitting the wall doesn't mean they didn't have an immensely beneficial impact by slowing the cars considerably before the impact occurred. (and frankly at those speeds NOTHING is going to prevent a car from reaching the wall with any sort of consistency)

And it's strange, those turns at Le Mans are part of the permanent, Bugatti Circuit. It's principally meant for bikes; that change was made in 2002 expressly for the bikes. If gravel was so bad, especially for bikes, it wouldn't have been left there for 15 years.

Wrong. Poor safety ideas tend to stick around for YEARS on account of one simple reason: It costs money to make the changes. The circuits often to not have the hundreds of thousands to million of dollars needed to implement the changes - if they did, all circuits would be like COTA in this regard.

Even NASCAR, champions of the IndyCar-developed SAFER Barrier, couldn't just snap their fingers and make them appear on all their tracks overnight. It took a full decade before all the Cup tracks were retrofitted with them, and this was at the peak of their popularity when they had TONS more cash to burn than they ever had before.