TecPro Barriers has criticised Monza over the time required to repair the tyre barrier damaged in Charles Leclerc’s crash at Parabolica, reigniting discussion around the Italian Grand Prix almost a week after the race. The company pointed to the approximately 35-minute red-flag interruption and argued that its modular barrier system could have allowed the damaged protection to be replaced much more quickly.
Formula 1 has already moved on to Madrid for the 14th round of the 2026 championship at the brand-new Madring circuit, but the events of the 2026 Italian Grand Prix at Monza continue to generate debate. This time, however, the focus is not on the actions of the drivers but on how the accident was managed by the marshals and Italian organisers.
TecPro criticises Monza after Charles Leclerc’s Parabolica crash
Shortly after the start, the race was stopped following Charles Leclerc’s violent accident at Parabolica. The red flag was necessary to allow the Ferrari to be removed and the damaged barriers to be repaired, with the race restarting only around 35 minutes later.
The delay did not go unnoticed. TecPro Barriers, a leading manufacturer of protective barriers used at many other circuits on the Formula 1 calendar, has now criticised the Temple of Speed over the amount of time required to repair the tyre barrier damaged in Charles Leclerc’s Monza accident.
Unlike circuits such as Jeddah, Baku, Las Vegas and the newly built Madring, TecPro barriers are used at Monza only in a limited number of specific locations. Other parts of the famous circuit remain protected by guardrails or stacks of tyres, including the area at Parabolica where Charles Leclerc crashed.
Although tyre barriers absorb the force of an impact, the solution is nevertheless very outdated and not entirely safe, particularly at certain speeds. Another weakness is the amount of time potentially required to replace or rebuild them after a significant accident.
TecPro points to 35-minute Monza red flag
TecPro Barriers used the incident to criticise Monza’s choice of protection, writing on LinkedIn: “35 minutes to rebuild a tyre barrier. That was the price of the red flag at Monza.”
The company then described the aftermath of the Ferrari driver’s accident and the work required before racing could resume.
“On lap two, Leclerc went off at Parabolica. He walked away unhurt, and that is what matters, but then the field had to wait almost 40 minutes while a tyre barrier that had come loose was rebuilt, row by row.”
Charles Leclerc subsequently underwent further checks after the impact before Formula 1 moved on to Madrid, where Ferrari and its rivals now face the completely new Madring circuit.
TecPro explains why its modular barriers can be replaced faster
TecPro then highlighted what it sees as the practical advantage of its own modular system when a barrier is damaged during a race.
“With the #TecProBarriers, damaged modules are unclipped, replaced with spares kept trackside and the protection is restored within a few minutes. The same protection for the driver, but very little downtime for the race, the television broadcaster and the fans.”
The company’s argument therefore centres not only on impact protection but also on how quickly a circuit can be returned to racing conditions following an accident. At Monza, the tyre barrier had to be reconstructed before Formula 1 could safely restart the Italian Grand Prix.
TecPro concluded its intervention by stressing that safety must remain the priority while questioning whether lengthy interruptions are necessary when alternative barrier systems are available.
“Safety first, always. But when the next serious accident happens, how quickly will you want to get racing again?”
The comments have added another subject to the discussions surrounding a dramatic Monza weekend for Ferrari and Charles Leclerc. While Formula 1’s attention has shifted to Madrid, the Parabolica accident has now prompted a wider debate about the type of safety barriers used at historic circuits and the time required to restore them after major impacts.
Leave a Reply