I doubt Senna would have crashed at Imola if the chicanes were there. The current track layout demands a lot more downforce. And I know Damon said the car was bottoming, but the bottom line is that with more downforce required, he wouldn't have been going as fast. And then I suspect he would have been able to slow down better because he would already be going slower, etc. Let's say the steering fails 200 metres before Tamburello. He would brake, turn into the corner, at about 100mph, go straight into the gravel, and stop there. End of race, without even hitting a wall.
Blame? No one. It was a freak accident.
The new Hockenheim is a shame for F1. Will it really be more exciting? Isn't going at 220mph exciting enough? Maybe it's more exciting in real life than in a game. But the new track is basically straight, wee curve, fiddly bit, hairpin, stadium. Probably about 70 times. The joy of Hockenheim is that it's a real test for the drivers and the machinery. See who can brake latest into the chicanes from 200mph. See whether the engines can take the strain. You can get a tow, and overtake there. It's a racing circuit, a very fast one. The 2000 race was hardly dull, was it? The '98 race was a great show. Hockenheim is one of the last tracks of the previous generations.
I'm quite embarrassed by the new Hockenheim circuit. I think it's a real loss for F1. If they were to change Monza as well, I'd be very disappointed. But they probably will. They won't need engines as powerful anymore. F1 could slow down, and just not be the same.
Circuit design.
It's not really the same these days. The tracks are all the same. They have no character, no feel to them. They're manufactured moreso than in previous times, and they're all created by the same guys (Herman Tilke GmbH). So they're all similar. Accelerate. Brake, hairpin. Accelerate, brake, chicance. Accelerate, fastish corner, brake, hairpin. Repeat ad nauseum. I find much more fun in driving less laps on a longer circuit than more laps on a shorter circuit. I'd rather do 2 races at Monza than one race at Sepang. I'd rather drive 77 laps of Suzuka than 77 laps of the Hungaroring.
Don't you think that it's time to open up a little, in terms of circuit design? You can do anything with enough runoff, so why not create a brilliant track that's great for the drivers and also for the fans. It works for Suzuka, but yet the track designers insist on creating clinical, sterile, but fan-friendly tracks like Sepang. It looks great, and for the fans it's fantastic (excuse the bad pun). But it's not the best track in the world. In fact, I rather dislike it. It's very wide. I don't get such a great impression of speed.
And I haven't mentioned Indianapolis yet!
I don't understand why the drivers don't do something about the current state of the tracks. Maybe they're all used to them, but I find a lot of them amazingly dull.
F1 wants to succeed in America. I can understand that. They're using part of the Indianapolis oval. Great idea, I can understand that. The infield section is so slow and twisty that you'd be faster cycling around it. I don't understand that. Why, if F1 wants to succeed in America, is it using a tight, twisty, unrewarding, unexciting track? Americans like their cars to go fast, hence the superspeedways like Michigan and Fontana. Indianapolis is fast, but only if you can only see the third sector of the track. That's fast. Why not move the grand prix to a real driver's track like Elkhart Lake, or Laguna Seca? Those places are good for the fans, but also great for the drivers. Places like that promote good racing. Good tracks equal good racing. At good tracks, demanding tracks, you really see who is boss. Isn't it much more exciting to see who doesn't lift through Eau Rouge than to see who can brake from 70mph into yet another hairpin? I'm not saying we need a circuit of Eau Rouges, but merely a circuit which has more fast corners than slow ones. Spa is a great example of that. Let's hope they don't want to start changing that.
Imola post-1994 doesn't have the same flat out feel as the old one. Pre-94, it was a fantastic, sweeping, demanding track. There was risk. There was danger. There was speed. And yes, there were accidents. I can understand the FIA wanting to take out a lot of the danger, but let's not get silly. F1 is all about being a dangerous sport.
There is nothing wrong with the current safety aspects of the cars. There is nothing wrong with the current state of the tracks in the "incorrect" sense of the word "wrong". However, I feel circuit design has gone way overboard post-1994. The Moscow F1 track is much the same - a lot of "action" in a tight space. That doesn't work. There's plenty of corners in not a lot of space. That doesn't always make for great racing.
If I were a country wanting to hold a race, I'd be on the phone to John Hugenholtz, circuit designer of Suzuka. That would be a great way to secure a race.