Sky F1's Martin Brundle reviews Sochi, Daniil Kvyat's latest mishap, a sombre podium and the dangers of F1's push for safety...
Thursday 19 May 2016 11:37, UK
The third running of the Russian GP in Sochi contained few big surprises, not least because it's only 28 weeks since we were last there. Glorious spring sunshine made it a more enjoyable experience but the track layout and low grip surface dominated proceedings.
When decisions were made some weeks ago Pirelli didn't have the knowledge and confidence to specify the new ultra-soft tyres which would have spiced it up.
On that front we had low tyre degradation again more like the Bridgestone and Michelin eras, and which for me confirms that marginal two-stop races generate the best action.
Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel being out of position on the grid was always going to be the highlight but much of that anticipation was taken away three corners into the race.
Having comprehensively won round one against Vettel in China, Daniil Kvyat suffered a knockout in Russia on home turf. Not only did he wipe out Vettel but the whole Red Bull team's afternoon as well, consigning them to a pointless race. The team's early pit-stop choice of medium compound tyres didn't look a good move either.
I really like Kvyat, he's such a great character on and off the track, and I felt for him because it wasn't a particularly big or wild error he made down at turn two, and a slowing Vettel was understandably cautious in front of him for the second contact, but it's undoubtedly damaged his chances of staying at Red Bull I suspect.
The great thing about F1 is that it's all hero and zero stuff which luckily cuts both ways in a hurry, so if he keeps his head he can recover the situation. Vettel is on his case big time though.
It's always a privilege to do the podium interviews, although I would sum up the three main inhabitants on Sunday as 'yes, it's all quite nice I suppose', 'poor little me', and 'it wasn't too bad apart from the bad bits'. I'll leave you to assign those while I take a few moments to reminisce and reflect on the Schumacher leap and other such podium joys.
We don't need actors on the stage but why are the drivers generally not more excited? I guess they've just become used to success in the best cars. Also, Nico didn't really have a fight, Lewis is fed up with unreliability, and Kimi was a way behind. I think there are too many races, and the drivers are subjected to relentless media and PR year round and especially over a race weekend. They learn to say less to avoid internet headlines and lectures from the team if they are off-message.
The front runners are earning millions and driving these glorious machines supported by hundreds of the finest technicians and viewed and admired by hundreds of millions of people. They should be permanently smiling with their good fortune.
They are certainly lucky to be driving such safe cars given that a trip to the wall mostly involves a rush onto the radio button to throw expletives to the team rather than a rush to hospital. And that's a good thing, those many fiery, gory sacrifices over the decades have enabled that. The big questions remain, are F1 cars safe enough now? And does F1 need risk to be attractive to fans?
I'm in the Niki Lauda camp in that I believe the tracks and cars are safe enough, as Niki said to me on the grid we mustn't lose the DNA, the essence of the sport. He's earned the right to that opinion. Open wheel, open cockpit, revered gladiators at the helm.
Fernando Alonso said over the weekend that 'F1 doesn't need heroes' and I totally disagree with him. That's exactly what F1 needs.
On the safety front, first and easily foremost it's about the fans trackside. They are attending and paying to be entertained, not injured or killed, and every effort is and must be made to protect them.
Next up are the marshals and track workers, the event simply couldn't run without their skills and participation, they are mostly unpaid volunteers and likely incurring costs, and they deserve total protection within the reality of their situation close to the cars, and the utmost respect from the drivers.
After that we have the pit crews and those on the pitwall. To an extent they are aware they at taking risks, and there will occasionally be injuries, but I believe all reasonable efforts are made to minimise this along with regular reviews.
Finally the drivers. When you step into or over the side of a racing car you must be aware that you may be injured, paralysed, or killed. If you're not prepared to take that much reduced risk then don't do it. A driver can expect all reasonable efforts to be made such that he can walk away from the vast majority of big crashes, and we clearly have that in F1.
I believe the cockpit closures will create as many safety issues as they solve, are ugly and heavy, and not particularly suitable to filter down to junior racing.
So does there have to be risk? Does it matter if it's more dangerous to drive to a GP venue than drive in it? As far as I'm concerned it does.
If the canopies were optional you know exactly how many drivers would use them. I asked a few paddock people over the weekend an extreme question because I was interested in the answer. If we had a ten lap qualifying race where seat belts were banned how many drivers would take part? What do you personally think?
The cockpit closure will almost certainly appear because liability scenarios will now mandate it. Then something else will happen until finally we have to take the driver out of the car to avoid any further injuries.
I have no data to back this up but I believe that if you cycle to work, ski the slopes, ride your motorbike and suchlike you are taking as many risks as a modern-day Formula 1 driver. But at least you don't have the chore of that champagne-soaked podium to put up with.
