F1 speed push can't neglect safety

It goes without saying the death of Jules Bianchi has cast a shadow over Formula 1.

Even as Bianchi clung to life at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire in his home city of Nice, there was at least a glimmer of hope he would - by some miracle - pull through.

So when news emerged in the early hours of Saturday morning he had passed away after a nine-month battle for survival following his horrific crash in last year's Japanese Grand Prix, the shockwaves were still seismic.

The bottom line is Bianchi became the first driver for 21 years - since Ayrton Senna in 1994 - to succumb to injuries sustained from an accident during a grand prix.

This week, though, I have no intention of raking through the coals of Bianchi's crash and what emerged from the aftermath.

That was not only done at the time, but there is a special supplement dedicated to the Frenchman in this week's AUTOSPORT magazine.

Raikkonen wants F1 to be more exciting © LAT

Instead, I have decided to focus on the apparent contradiction that while F1 will be dealing with its grief in the public arena of the Hungaroring this weekend, moves continue apace behind the scenes to seemingly increase its danger.

When the FIA, following a meeting of the Strategy Group in May, announced a raft of measures designed to reduce lap times for 2017 by five to six seconds it was widely applauded.

The general consensus has been F1, since its introduction of the current power units, has slowed to such a degree the drivers barely break a sweat come the end of a race, that the risk element has disappeared.

Only recently Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen voiced his concerns by stating when he first arrived in F1 "it was more exciting for everyone".

The Finn added: "You would have thought cars would have become faster, but with rule changes they have tried to make them more slow.

"We must do something to make watching F1 more exciting, to appreciate the speed and to make it a little more dangerous. It is part of the game.

"We don't wish to see anyone hurt, but it makes things a little more exciting."

Lauda and Ecclestone also chipped in on the safety topic © XPB

Niki Lauda agreed, the three-time champion slating the fact there was now "too much control, too many rules and not enough characters".

Mercedes' non-executive chairman added: "The most important thing is the cars must again be difficult to drive.

"When I switched from Formula 2 to Formula 1, I crapped in my pants.

"It must again be about real men driving, not young men who play only with the buttons on the steering wheel.

"Only drivers with the highest driving skills, and I emphasise driving skills, may be in Formula 1.

"We cannot turn back the clock, but a driver must again have the car in his hands, not driving as now by pushing buttons.

"The highest limits and the risk factor have been lost."

Lauda made clear he was not advocating F1 should become more "dangerous", just "riskier".

Conditions were challenging on the day of Bianchi's accident © XPB

So I wonder where Bianchi's death now sits in the minds of Raikkonen and Lauda?

Were the highest limits not reached, the risk factor not at its zenith that wet, grey, and now fateful day at Suzuka?

Yes, you could argue there were extenuating circumstances - the delay of the race given the conditions, the incessant rain, the wet track, the recovery vehicle Bianchi hit being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It all added up to "a perfect storm" of circumstances, a phrase used by FIA president Jean Todt a few days after the accident.

But then such incidents, by definition, are usually a confluence of factors anyway, and as such, anything can happen at any time if the circumstances are right.

So why is there this need for greater risk, to increase the speed of the cars? Are the dangers still not abundantly obvious?

This week F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone underlined there is a contradiction, stating F1 remains "dangerous".

But then Ecclestone also noted: "If you were to choose to have an accident today in anything, you'd choose a Formula 1 [car] because it's probably the safest it's ever been".

F1 cars should become faster than ever before in 2017 © LAT

In a separate interview, Ecclestone also touched on what he views as the complaints F1 has "perhaps got too safe and too clinical".

But then suggested to Ecclestone a driver such as Bianchi would have wanted cars to be far quicker than at present, he replied: "Yes, exactly. He wouldn't be complaining, no, no, no.

"We make it as safe as it is possible, but obviously these guys driving as quick as they are... it's safe, but not safe."

And there is the rub, no matter how stringent the FIA attempts to make cars and circuits safer, it cannot cater for every eventuality, as with the case with Bianchi.

So now, for 2017, we are looking at reducing laptimes to such an extent the cars would become "the fastest [in F1] that ever existed", according to Mercedes motorsport boss Toto Wolff.

Is this what is genuinely needed to bring the excitement back to F1? Has it become so sterile it is prepared to up the risk factor to such a level?

In 1982, when the turbos hit F1, Rene Arnoux set a pole position time around Monaco of 1m23.281s, at that stage 1.5 seconds quicker than anything seen previously following the principality track's extension in 1973.

Senna lowered that mark by 2.8s in 1985, before the first sub-80s Monaco pole lap in 1992 came courtesy of Nigel Mansell.

Come 2011, Sebastian Vettel lowered the benchmark to a staggering 1m13.556s, the quickest pole lap in Monaco GP history, but just 1.5s quicker than that posted by Lewis Hamilton this year.

Arnoux's Monaco pole pace in 1982 in the turbocharged Renault was a benchmark © LAT

That shows just how far F1 has come in such a short period of time, shaving 10s off a lap of Monaco from Arnoux in 1982 to Vettel in 2011, and with the track marginally longer (but more 'open' in layout) in the latter's case.

And now we are potentially looking at Monaco laps of sub-72s perhaps?

Of course, over that same period the cockpits and crash structures of cars have improved immeasurably, similarly with regard to the barriers, the majority of which are now deformable.

But with such a vast increase in lap times planned, so the g-forces and impact speeds are naturally raised, and while the cars are at present safe, would they be safe enough?

As FIA race director Charlie Whiting recently noted at a FIA Sport Conference gathering: "Think of [the crash] in Canada last year involving Sergio Perez and Felipe Massa.

"Entering the last lap they had a big accident, tyre barriers went everywhere and the cars were very badly damaged, but the drivers emerged unscathed. I think that's what everyone comes to see.

"We need to make sure there is that element of danger, but that no one gets hurt, that's really our function."

For the sake of every driver involved in F1, and to avoid a repeat of an incident of the ilk that cost Bianchi his life, one can only hope amid the frenzy of new rules for 2017, the FIA ensures safety considerations are factored into the equation.