The Brazilian Grand Prix was an incredible race, but if you judged it based on commentary alone, you’d think Interlagos was Formula One on its knees.
With the exception of the justified bewilderment in the face of Max Verstappen’s masterful charge to the podium, much of the rest of the commentary was expressed in tones of distaste – distaste for Formula One no longer being some truer form of motorsport that was lost somewhere between today and whenever any given pundit last won a race.
Despite the thrilling racing Brazil was a diabolical combination of the sport’s love of its past and intolerance of change, and the result was a nauseating three hours of inane ‘back in my day’ references.
It started immediately. Race control delayed the start of the race to see if the rain, heavy enough to cause Romain Grosjean to crash on his way to the grid, would ease, but when the weather didn’t lift, race director Charlie Whiting called for a safety car start.
‘Heresy!’ shouted the critics, with a frustrating many decrying the FIA’s safety-first attitude at a circuit notorious for standing water.
Commentary of the red flag periods, in particular the second one, which was triggered after a clutch of exploratory laps behind the safety car, was similarly sanctimonious, particularly when Lewis Hamilton was made the poster boy for a racing resumption by declaring on team radio that conditions were raceable.
It was barely noted that Hamilton, leading the race, was obviously not being subjected to the spray propelled into the visors of every driver behind him, and it warranted only brief mention that he had obvious championship-related motivations for the race to reach three-quarter distance, after which full points can be awarded.
When racing did finally resume, quelling the furore, the field’s reluctance to switch to the intermediate tyre was never considered supporting evidence for the circuit’s poor condition, and instead it was used to seamlessly pivot from the governing body’s outrageous adhesion to its safety guidelines to skewering Pirelli’s tyres.
In Brazil it was the wet-compound tyre due for criticism – a regular occurrence in rain-affected grands prix, though never mind the teams have only this year allowed Pirelli to test its tyres with representative F1 cars – in an attack that fit in nicely with dominant discourse that Pirelli’s tyres aren’t for racing.
It was fascinating to behold commentary criticising both the tyres for being inadequate for the conditions and the FIA for pausing the race when conditions were too extreme for the tyres. The hypocrisy didn’t matter – logical inconsistencies didn’t exist in the much-hyped ‘good old days’.
Nigel Mansell, as a Formula One world champion, has been among the highest profile critics of the sport’s approach to safety in wet weather, summing up his position after the British Grand Prix, which was also started behind the safety car.
“I am from the old school years ago a race in the rain was normal. Amazing standing start in wet was fantastic get it right so much fun,” the 1992 titleholder tweeted with scant regard for punctuation.
Unsurprisingly the Briton was at it again this weekend, teaming up with Sky Sports Formula One pundit Martin Brundle to lament the safety-conscious start.
“What Martin said was perfect,” he tweeted. “You have a throttle pedal and it works both ways, you go as quick as you are happy with and get on with it.”
The idea that drivers can regulate safety themselves is as misleading as it is apparently insidious, as is the myth that ‘real’ Formula One exists only in the half-forgotten haze of the past.
One need only consider the litany of yellow flag infringements dealt in the last 24 months to realise how much of the sport’s quest for safety exists because drivers have proven themselves untrustworthy when forced to choose between safety and competitive advantage.
Likewise this idea that racing was somehow superior in days past is misleading. The 1996 Brazilian Grand Prix, referenced on Sky Sports Formula One’s coverage this weekend as an example of ‘real wet racing’, featured just two cars on the lead lap and seven retirements because of deteriorating conditions – and that’s without considering the higher death toll in the sport’s less safety-conscious years.
It is impossible to argue the race Formula One got this weekend – perfectly judged by race control for both weather and time – is somehow lacking in comparison.
The 2016 Brazilian Grand Prix demonstrated that the FIA is on top of its game when it comes to maximising racing and minimising risk in dangerous conditions. To suggest this somehow represents overzealousness or the sterilisation of racing misses the point completely – racing is improved and drivers are emboldened precisely because of Formula One’s inevitable march away from its so-called ‘good old days’.
Follow @MichaelLamonato on Twitter
anon
Guest
I thought the majority of the incidents were simply the result of driving mistakes, such as sticking a wheel on white line. Aquaplaning is simply an occupational hazard. Motor racing is dangerous. It says so on your ticket and the signs around the track. The throttle really does work both ways. Some of them are paid tens of millions per year to accept greater risk than the mugs in the stands. To me the conditions were extreme but not diabolical. The torrential downpours we've seen in Malaysia where the drivers aquaplane left and right are situations that necessitate red flags, but not what we saw in Brazil.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
Hopefully they can bolster the drainage, which they have done at various points, without changing the track — it'd be a shame to lose the character of the place. I'd rather races have long delays than neuter any part of the circuit, to be honest.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
The crowd does count for something, but I suppose any group of people forced to stand out in the rain for hours would get pretty frustrated! They all seemed to come back once they heard the cars fire up after the red flag, at least. It seems like even though conditions were improved during that safety car interlude between the two red flags, pausing the race a second time allowed more bad weather, which would potentially caused more accidents and stopped the race again anyway, to pass and enabled the race to run the full distance. Stopping the clock means we don't miss out on any action (unless the stoppage is hours long), so that's an additional benefit. It wasn't just TV commentary, just commentary in general — although there was some definite Hamilton pandering I didn't need so early in the morning!
Chris
Guest
They need to level off parts of the back straight so standing water is not an issue. It is a very old track. The corners were totally safe to drive with tons of run off. That part of the track was the issue not the rain and not the tires or tyres.
Rodney Gordon
Expert
To be fair, I've never seen such unanimous disruption in the audience reacting to a red flag than we had in Brazil. I'm not saying the crowd should be the ones deciding if it's safe to drive or not, just that it concerned me that they clearly felt something not right was going on. I can only speculate, but it's likely that the cars were being pulled in despite the fact that conditions were better than they had been when racing was actually happening. I wouldn't criticise the authorities for erring on the safe of safety, but it's yet another example of an unclear application of the regulations. For what it's worth, I didn't feel the commentary was too bad - and I'm usually the first one to stick the boot in, but I was very tired :p
Michael Lamonato
Expert
I mostly agree with what you're saying. We need to accept that F1 will always be inherently risky, but if conditions are bad enough for Kimi Raikkonen to crash while driving in a straight line, then the conditions aren't suitable for racing. Unfortunately, though, drivers are competitors, and even when they recognise that conditions are probably beyond acceptable, they will continue to push. This is the danger the FIA is eliminating. At the end of the day we can't blame the governing body for wanting to avoid its drivers being seriously injured or worse to satisfy television audiences — the same audiences which turned aggressively against it in the aftermath of Jules Bianchi's accident, it's worth noting. Wet races certainly have provided our sport with some of its most iconic racing, and the race we ended up with an iconic race — in particular an iconic drive from Max Verstappen in a performance likened to Senna in those 'good old days'. This proves the FIA got the balance right.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
That's true, and the commentators should generally be pointing out that much of what the drivers complain about when it comes to tyres is down the fact Pirelli has mostly had to guess its way through its latter years in F1 because of testing. It is worth noting, though, that the wets were good enough to use for most of the race, and that some of the suspensions were down to the track really just being too wet, partly because of the geography of the area. But there's obviously room for improvement with this tyre, you're right.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
Thanks, mate!
Mark Young
Roar Guru
Counterpoint - Any time you drive an F1 car, or indeed participate in any sport, you are taking a risk. As an adult, you are assessing the risk of the situation, levelling it with your level of skill and amount of protection and choosing whether or not to partake. F1 drivers take outrageous risks in dry races purely because they have enormous faith in both their ability and their car to keep them safe in a crash. So, when it is wet, surely the same applies. They are still exercising their skill in accelerating, braking and turning, only with less grip and far less visibility. The serious injuries and deaths in this sport in the last 30 years have all occurred due a failure in process (tractor on the track, F1 car in a carpark, lack of marshalls) or a freak occurrence that could have happened anywhere (suspension rod through helmet). Wet races are the most celebrated moments of the history of the sport. Work it out F1, get it happening again.
Nick T.
Guest
Great points. I almost bought in to the hype about the FIA being overly cautious, but you brought me back to reality. However, while Pirelli may have an excuse for the extreme wets' poor performance, the commentators are right to point out that there should be a much more robust extreme wet on offer to prevent the necessity of delays. They just should have put it in more context (e.g., "Pirelli should have XYZ but, folks at home, the rules aren't giving them ample testing to do so").
Dale D
Guest
Knocked it out of the park with this one, Michael. Good job.