The simple solution to F1's track limits problem

When watching replays of Alex Peroni's FIA Formula 3 car flying through the air at Monza last weekend, it looks more like the kind of crash you see in a glitchy sim racing game than something that can happen in real life.

But while the immediate discussion over Peroni's accident revolved around safety - and a hat must be tipped to the roles that the chassis, halo, barrier and fencing protections played in saving his life - the real issue at stake here does not have its roots in safety.

Instead, it's to do with track limits.

Although sausage kerbs are being used as a deterrent in the fight to keep drivers on track and not off it, abusing track limits, they are ultimately just a plaster. This is because a way of properly enforcing how to keep cars between the two white lines has not yet been thought up.

In fact, sausage kerbs have only become standard because of the way that safety standards have evolved. Where once there was a natural deterrent with grass and gravel, now the increased use of asphalt runoff areas means something artificial needs to be put there to serve the same purpose in encouraging drives to stay away.

Grand Prix Drivers' Association chairman Alexander Wurz says sausage kerbs are something F1 should not need, because they are regularly located in areas of tracks that should be only about keeping cars and drivers safe.

"I have always been against sausage kerbs for many reasons," he said at Monza. "On very few places around race tracks in the world might a sausage kerb be justified. They shouldn't be there.

"You have to remember Imola 1994. Not the fatal accidents of [Roland] Ratzenberger and [Ayron] Senna, but the Rubens Barrichello one in free practice. On a corner exit he hit a high kerb, and it was a really nasty crash. That race weekend changed the safety directiona lot in our industry, as we moved towards exit kerbs being more flat and not propelling cars into the air."

The real issue here isn't a safety one, it's a sporting one. Drivers have been given a comfort blanket by the widespread use of asphalt runoffs, and it is that which needs sorting without compromising safety

Another factor to consider with sausage kerbs is that what works for F1 does not necessarily work for other categories at grands prix. Ride heights between F2, F3 and F1 machinery can vary depending on how close to the ground the cars best run.

So what may not be a problem for F1 cars that run with high rake, it could well be an issue for other categories than run a bit lower - whether it's from damaging the floor with regular contact or, in a worst case scenario, being launched like Peroni was last weekend or Konstantin Tereshchenko was in GP3 at Spa in 2014.

Numerous calls from drivers to remove the sausage kerbs prompted further discussion, which suggested that a much better way forward is to replace asphalt runoff areas with gravel, so drivers are not tempted to run wide in the first place.

But after years where the FIA has done so much to improve circuit safety, and the data suggests that asphalt is a better solution in most areas than gravel, it is perhaps unrealistic to suggest that we now rewind the clock and tell circuits to start digging up their runoffs and filling them up with stones instead.

The real issue at stake here isn't a safety one, it's a sporting one - in that drivers have been given a comfort blanket by the widespread use of asphalt runoffs, and it is that which needs sorting without compromising safety.

One factor that cannot be ignored in the Peroni crash is that despite running wide off the track, he appeared to have kept his foot in in a bid to not lose too much time; meaning he struck the kerb at high speed.

A big discussion point after Anthoine Hubert's fatal crash at Spa was whether asphalt runoffs are tempting drivers to refrain from backing off if they run wide, because there is every chance the losses will be small. The caution and loss of speed drivers employ when they run wide over grass or gravel is very different.

But amid the latest debate about sausage kerbs and gravel traps, there could be a way forward that pleases everyone. Its something that preserves the safety aspects of asphalt runoff areas, but also ensures that drivers don't abuse them in a bid to gain unfair advantage. It's electronic policing of track limits.

As the investigation into Sebastian Vettel's off-track moment at Parabolica in Q3 showed last weekend, until now most track limits abuses often come down to interpretation - and that leaves teams and drivers with wriggle room.

In Vettel's case, he was given the benefit of the doubt that although his tyres may not have maintained contact with the white lines, his wheels may have been inside.

That such matters are subject to this kind of interpretation is not hugely satisfactory, which is why rolling out electronic policing of track limits more and more makes perfect sense.

Anything that takes away subjectivity and doubt is better for everyone

At Raidillon at Spa, for example, for years the best solution to deter drivers from cutting the kerb on the left was to install small sausage kerbs. But as drivers feared the potential for car damage or being launched at the top of the hill, the FIA instead installed an electronic loop system to police matters a couple of years ago.

While it was rolled out for qualifying and the race last year, a few weeks ago F1 race director Michael Masi switched the system - once nicknamed the 'cheat loop' - on for practice as well, warning drivers that they would have times deleted if they were caught running wide.

And amazingly, with a no-nonsense approach throughout the entire Spa weekend, no F1 driver triggered the loop - because they knew that there were no ifs and no buts.

Masi has already talked about introducing the system elsewhere - and using an electronic loop on the exit of Parabolica next year rather than having a sausage kerb there seems to be the perfect solution. As Masi suggests, anything that takes away subjectivity and doubt is better for everyone.

The technology may not yet be ready to be used at all tracks and in all circumstances, and it equally may need to be used in conjunction with a Hawk-Eye system to ensure it is as foolproof as it can be, but it's something that should be given priority so F1 can rid itself of the need for sausage kerbs entirely.

Pushing down this avenue to enforce track limits effectively and rigorously, adopting a no-nonsense approach, and punishing drivers in competitive terms if they do run wide - all without compromising safety - is a win-win for everybody.