Sounds like rubbish to me, mere excuse-finding. Alonso just got too aggressive in trying to get past, like his hard- charging youthful self might have done.
He's lucky that the landing, after being airborne over the sand-trap, was rear-end first, so the car dug in deep and he was forced back into the seat. If the car had skipped instead of digging in he would have hit that barrier at a likely-fatal speed, possibly with crowd injuries. Until that landing, not much of his 300kph had been washed off.
F1 fatalities are so rare these days it's amazing to think back 40+ years ago when the top drivers all knew a couple of them would be dead by the end of each season.
there is some speculation that it was caused by software glitch on the front car, there was a short flash from the rear light indicating energy recovery
It didn't help when they ended re-fuelling a few years ago. There used to be some great scrapes during those stops. And the new engines sound like hair dryers.
most gravel traps have been replaced with tarmac because gravel doesn't work very well with F1 cars they either skip over or dig in and flip over which is the last thing you want
When exactly the same thing happened to rookie Max Verstappen last year in Monaco, he got a penalty. In the case of Alonso, it is regarded as a race incident only.
it's an economy run nowadays, not a race. 100kg of fuel and instantaneous consumption limited to 100kg/hr (on pain of exclusion - ref Ricciardo 2015) doesn't equate to racing.
Racing without rules and limitations would lead to very dangerous situations. Earlier limitations often lead to a direct reduction in speed, but this one leaves room for innovation. That is a good thing in a racing competition where teams design and build their own cars to compete against others racing by the same rules.
Since the 1980's or earlier, the cars have been able to go faster than the human brains that control them. That's why sliding skirts were abandoned... and all the other regulation that followed.
The pinnacle of motor racing would be self-driving - but who would watch? So we decide on something that humans can drive, and frankly the choice of what things to regulate is unavoidably arbitrary. Might as well regulate in the direction of road-use spin-offs.
If F1 wants to be the pinnacle of motor racing, it needs to abandon the notion of being green for the sake of being green.
Development spinoffs for road car use are great, but shouldn't saddle F1 with any feeling of duty. They should be just that, spinoffs, NOT an objective.
Back in the days of refuelling, that's exactly the environment that prevailed. So it is now, except for the artificially imposed fuel limits which prevent flat-out racing. You only need to compare qualifying times with fastest race lap to see the impact the instantaneous fuel rate has on the notion of "racing".
Don't be so trigger-happy! This sentence is just an introduction into my next argument.
I don't agree with that. There have to be limitations, and they can choose between silly limitations like a rev- or power limiter, bad tyres, banning wings etc, or some limitation that motivates teams to improve efficiency. I think the latter is as good or better as the formerly used rules that just make everyone hit the same physical limit.
This is not only about spinoffs, it is about developing a faster car within the limitations. F1 is both about constructing a fast car and about driving it around a circuit. Other racing categories take a given car and let the drivers fight it out on their own personal qualities, but that is not F1.
Refuelling was nice too, but it was a bit dangerous. When fuel-limits prevent racing, the engineers should find a way to get more power out of the limited amount of fuel. Just like they have to find a way to go around the corner quicker with the given tyres and limitations on weight and dimensions of the cars.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.