Bianchi family launch legal action

[JeremySmith]

One again I have to agree with Mike here, it is a recognised fact that Jules was carrying way too much speed and did not appear to be in compliance of a double waved yellow flag status ..

[FormulaFox]

What you're completely failing to understand is that whether or not Bianchi was responding correctly is simply not relevant to whether or not the issue of the crane deployment should be addressed.

The fact of the matter is that this accident highlighted the danger of deploying the crane under those circumstances. With no crane, Bianchi is more than likely alive today.

As has been noted, Bianchi wasn't dealing with the locals in any way that the FIA hasn't been okay with in the past. And then there's the fact that we don't know what was going through his head - for all we know he could have lost control as the result of an attempt to slow down for the crash.

Regardless of why Bianchi lost control, the fact of the matter is, if you want to learn from an accident you do NOT ignore one factor just because it came into play as the result of someone else's mistake. In a traffic crash you don't ignore the fact that someone was drunk just because he hit someone who ran a red light, or vice versa.

Refusing to address the matter of the crane and the choice to not deploy the safety car just because "it's Bianchi's fault for losing control" is ridiculous. The matter should be address no differently than if Bianchi had gone flying into the crane as the result of a suspension or tire failure.

WHY a crash happened should not override research into the RESULT of the crash. I cannot emphasize this enough, EVERY. SINGLE. ASPECT. must be properly investigated. The fact that important elements were blatantly ignored is not only unprofessional, it is foolish and dangerous.

By refusing to properly address such an important issue, the FIA is saying that the well-being of their participants is not a concern to them. It makes them look like they're just paying lip service to the safety advocates.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

A lot of people on that panel are experts I respect, as well. But that does not mean they're infallible. It does not mean they can't be pressured into "sanitizing" their findings, so to speak.

true and i suppose if i was to discount that outright i would be naive...far too much corruption in sports to dismiss what you say out of hand.

that said, i dont see Wurz, for example, as head of the GPDA, whitewashing something that strikes at he heart of something he is a strong advocate for ...specifically driver safety issues. all things being equal i dont see what his motivation would be to do that.

but i suppose that is what trials are for and i would imagine he, along with the other members of the panel, will be deposed.

time will tell.

[Mike Harte]

FormulaFox, I'm afraid that we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Just like myself, you have just read a few paragraphs long summary of a report that is several hundred pages in length, and you are assuming that the FIA have not looked at all the safety implications surrounding the incident. I think that you are wrong in that assessment, and the fact that the FIA are bringing forward the proposal to introduce the cockpit protection is just one element that arises from that report.

The summary, to me anyway, seems to be concerned as to the causes of the accident, not the consequences. I know that I've said it before, but the recovery vehicle did not cause the accident; it was stationary at the time, and was struck by Bianchi's out of control car. If the vehicle had not been there, then there is a possibility that the marshals may have been hit, or who knows what.

This very much reminds me of something that happened to a friend of mine about 30 years ago. On a very dark night, he was driving home after work along an unlit motorway when he ran into some road works at the side of the highway. As the impact was at quite a high speed, it was very lucky that he was uninjured, and he continued to carry on sleeping until the police arrived and decanted him from the car. He was, to use an English colloquialism, as fissed as a part (to get around the censor (boo, boo) you have to re-arrange the first letters of the saying to make some sense of it), and the courts through the book at him. However, his lawyer tried to put forward in his defence that if the road works had been lit or, better still, not been there at all, then he wouldn't have had the accident (actually, being drunk at the wheel of a car makes it an "on purpose"). The defence strategy was booted out, quite rightly.

If Bianchi had been observing the flags and had slowed sufficiently so that he was able to stop if required by the marshals at the scene, then the accident would not have occurred. And then, even if there had been a fleet of track vehicles at the point of the incident, Bianchi wouldn't have hit any of them, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And in answer to whoever about the safety car, it was on the other side of the circuit. And there is plenty of evidence that racing drivers use every effort to catch up to the snake behind the safety car, usually at pretty much full throttle.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

What you're completely failing to understand is that whether or not Bianchi was responding correctly is simply not relevant to whether or not the issue of the crane deployment should be addressed.

What you're completely failing to understand is that whether or not the crane deployment should be addressed is simply not relevant to whether or not Bianchi was responding correctly.

I am not trying to be a jerk by reversing your logic (as the reverse is equally true). You have a number of good points (I didn't quote your entire post), but I think you are somewhat shouting down those who point out Bianchi's role in the entire thing. It "feels" (based upon posts here) like the discussion has to be about either one (Bianchi) or the other (FIA), but it should include both.

As I have mentioned above, I do think they should look at way to improve safety while "anything" unusual is on the track. Be it marshalls or recovery vehicles. I think someone made the point earlier that one solution is that if just about anything happens (debris on track, car pulls off to the side, dog on track, etc.), that the race should be immediately red flagged. I can't find that post, but I don't think that was intended to be the real answer, but it does point out that you can't handle all scenarios unless you want to implement a drastic rule such as that in which it would result in frequent race stoppages. The FIA report does point out to what they currently consider to be their catch all...

"If drivers adhere to the requirements of double yellow flags, as set out in Appendix H, Art. 2.4.5.1.b, then neither competitors nor officials should be put in immediate or physical danger."

In short, they put the onus on the driver to adjust to the circumstances (have we not seen drivers slow and weave through post crash debris at very low speed?) I think that is an eminently logical solution, but one that will still occasionally fail as it does give the drivers enough rope to hang themselves (no disrespect to Bianchi intended). It is a compromise that allows some race progression to continue while issues are dealt with that appear to not be red-flag worthy. And hindsight can expose the flaw (maybe it should have been red-flagged) and aggregating factors (maybe the recovery vehicle shouldn't have been out even in double yellow).

But that also doesn't mean that other things shouldn't be looked at. I for one think that a separate study on all things related to recovery vehicles is needed. And one of the FIA recommendations is...

"Consideration will be given to a review of F1 risk, in order to ascertain whether there are any significant holes in the safety defences, such that an unforeseen combination of circumstances could result in a serious accident."

However... I have not seen anything published about what if anything has happened with that. There should be more transparency.

Richard

[peebee2]

There's a lot of missing the point!

Car did not conform to safety regulations. This was known.

Car was allowed to race anyway.

Anything else is after the fact of this potentially gross negligence?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by peebee2

There's a lot of missing the point!

Car did not conform to safety regulations. This was known.

Car was allowed to race anyway.

Anything else is after the fact of this potentially gross negligence?

Firstly, nearly every team, if not all of them, were experiencing problems in 2014 with the new brake systems that had been introduced for that year by the FIA. And I am not clear whether the FIA would have tested the operations of the various braking systems prior to them being passed at scrutineering.

However, the report states that the incompatibility within the braking system on the Marussia car did not become a factor until the car was actually leaving the track, at which point Bianchi started pressing down on both pedals. Until that point brakes would have been ineffectual because the car was aquaplaning. So, the issues of the brakes were addressed in the full report.

Which brings us right back to the point that the "on purpose" was caused by excessive speed.

[peebee2]

And who wrote that report?

I think if you had a son who was killed in a car which you later found out was outside of the safety regulations, possibly in the knowledge of the sport's regulators, then you might think there was negligence from others as well as your son... and you might have a very good point.

What might counsel think about a car ran outside of regulations that were brought in specifically to aid safety??

[S griffin]

As people have said, nothing was deliberate, it was just that brake by wire was probably not tested by the FIA rnough

[peebee2]

So a safety system is introduced and the regulators don't check cars have it?

There is some serious naïveté here with legalities and liabilities.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by peebee2

So a safety system is introduced and the regulators don't check cars have it?

There is some serious naïveté here with legalities and liabilities.

You have missed the point. The car had all the systems that were mandated by the FIA, but it was then found, whether after the accident or not I don't know, that the fly-by-wire brakes on the rear were not compatible with the fail safe software that was supposed to neutralise the power.

But even this is possibly a mute point because at the time that the car was off the track, the front brakes were locked solid and the wheels were no longer turning, and the car was not capable of being steered.

Back full circle; excessive speed caused the accident.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

So a safety system is introduced and the regulators don't check cars have it?

There is some serious naïveté here with legalities and liabilities.

Someone may very well have some liability issues. Question is... were they negligent? I am generally a believer in the concept that unfortunate mistakes happen and that it doesn't always have to fall into the negligent category. However... what makes this hard for Manor is the entire history with Maria de Villota. Does that show a pattern or is it two unrelated incidents at the same team? You have to wonder if this is only a small team problem or does some level of "fast and loose engineering" happen everywhere in F1.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

So, the issues of the brakes were addressed in the full report.

Who has seen the full report? I assume it was available within at least a select group within FIA and likely made available to Manor and maybe others within F1. Is there a version of it that is publicly available. Can anyone here claim to have read it?

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

You have missed the point. The car had all the systems that were mandated by the FIA, but it was then found, whether after the accident or not I don't know, that the fly-by-wire brakes on the rear were not compatible with the fail safe software that was supposed to neutralise the power

I would pay to see that argued in court. I haven't missed the point. That IS the point.

"We think they had the systems but we don't know if they worked as we never checked."

Or

"They had a system which we checked and it didn't work, but we let them run anyway."

Heads you win, tails I lose!

People seem to think the Bianchi are stupid.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Who has seen the full report? I assume it was available within at least a select group within FIA and likely made available to Manor and maybe others within F1. Is there a version of it that is publicly available. Can anyone here claim to have read it?

Richard

Richard, I have searched for the full report, but it does not seem to be publically available. This is a repost of the part about the brakes from the summary which I had written about this evening from memory:

7. During the 2 seconds Bianchi’s car was leaving the track and traversing the run-off area, he applied both throttle and brake together, using both feet. The FailSafe algorithm is designed to over-ride the throttle and cut the engine, but was inhibited by the Torque Coordinator, which controls the rear Brake-by-Wire system. Bianchi’s Marussia has a unique design of BBW, which proved to be incompatible with the FailSafe settings.

8. The fact that the FailSafe did not disqualify the engine torque requested by the driver may have affected the impact velocity; it has not been possible to reliably quantify this. However, it may be that Bianchi was distracted by what was happening and the fact that his front wheels had locked, and been unable to steer the car such that it missed the crane.

[chillibowl]

and did the drivers know that the issues with the failsafe existed or not prior to entering the car? as Mike points out this was a known issue in 2014...surely he got into the car with eyes wide open.

the fact that the team, its personel, or their suppliers are not named in the suit leads me to think that the issue with the failsafe algorithm not working was not the cause of the accident nor the focus of the family's lawsuit so it might be fair to say this is a moot issue anyways.

so as mike says we are back full circle to excessive speed being the contributory cause of the accident.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

What you're completely failing to understand is that whether or not the crane deployment should be addressed is simply not relevant to whether or not Bianchi was responding correctly.

No, I'm not failing to understand that at all. The point I'm making is that while neither one is relevant to the other, BOTH are relevant to fully understanding the safety issues the crash has brought up. We cannot dismiss a detail as unworthy of consideration just because the events leading up to it's influence were the result of another's mistake.

but I think you are somewhat shouting down those who point out Bianchi's role in the entire thing.

No, if I'm "shouting down" anything the insistence that Bianchi's role should be the ONLY thing considered.

It "feels" (based upon posts here) like the discussion has to be about either one (Bianchi) or the other (FIA), but it should include both.

That's exactly what I'm trying to impress upon people; ALL aspects need to be considered. I focus on the crane and the safety car procedures because the simple fact is that all other issues -particularly Bianchi's culpability- have been looked at, so the stress needs to be placed on what was skipped(and how it may color the already investigated matters), not what was already covered. In this case, that's the safety car and crane deployment procedures.

When you're trying to get someone to look at the parts they missed, harping on what they already considered isn't going to help. You need to focus on what was ignored and why it shouldn't be if you want to push to getting the entire picture colored in.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by peebee2

People seem to think the Bianchi are stupid.

i dont feel as though anyone here thinks that.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and did the drivers know that the issues with the failsafe existed or not prior to entering the car? as Mike points out this was a known issue in 2014...surely he got into the car with eyes wide open.

the fact that the team, its personel, or their suppliers are not named in the suit leads me to think that the issue with the failsafe algorithm not working was not the cause of the accident nor the focus of the family's lawsuit so it might be fair to say this is a moot issue anyways.

so as mike says we are back full circle to excessive speed being the contributory cause of the accident.

The team IS named and thus its officers too by definition.

As to "eyes wide open" you cannot disclaim death.

[chillibowl]

yeah sorry my bad the team is named in the action.

[fredd1]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

No, I'm not failing to understand that at all. The point I'm making is that while neither one is relevant to the other, BOTH are relevant to fully understanding the safety issues the crash has brought up. We cannot dismiss a detail as unworthy of consideration just because the events leading up to it's influence were the result of another's mistake.



No, if I'm "shouting down" anything the insistence that Bianchi's role should be the ONLY thing considered.



That's exactly what I'm trying to impress upon people; ALL aspects need to be considered. I focus on the crane and the safety car procedures because the simple fact is that all other issues -particularly Bianchi's culpability- have been looked at, so the stress needs to be placed on what was skipped(and how it may color the already investigated matters), not what was already covered. In this case, that's the safety car and crane deployment procedures.

When you're trying to get someone to look at the parts they missed, harping on what they already considered isn't going to help. You need to focus on what was ignored and why it shouldn't be if you want to push to getting the entire picture colored in.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

That's exactly what I'm trying to impress upon people; ALL aspects need to be considered. I focus on the crane and the safety car procedures because the simple fact is that all other issues -particularly Bianchi's culpability- have been looked at, so the stress needs to be placed on what was skipped(and how it may color the already investigated matters), not what was already covered. In this case, that's the safety car and crane deployment procedures.

When you're trying to get someone to look at the parts they missed, harping on what they already considered isn't going to help. You need to focus on what was ignored and why it shouldn't be if you want to push to getting the entire picture colored in.

The problem that both sides of this debate, which I sincerely hope can continue in this adult fashion without insults being thrown around, have is that we would seem to not be a party to the whole report. In that, I agree with the Bianchi family that the FIA needs to be far, far more transparent with their reports.

So we do not know what has or has not been omitted from the report, but we do know that the summary places most of the responsibility for the crash on Jules for his excessive speed. What we further know is that recommendations were made by the expert panel that compiled the report, including cockpit protection, but we do not know how the FIA are going to deal with them.

What the FIA are guilty of, it seems, is of withholding this full report from the public at large. Publishing it may have made this discussion irrelevant, and I find it regrettable that the FIA have taken the course that they appear to have done.