Worst Crash From 00-04

[Ian Sowman]

It depends how you mean "worse" - it looks like luke means "looked worse" in this case.

[Dan Fielden]

Kicking i feel that this is getting blown out of proportion. Luke is only pointing out that the Nick and Taku crash lLOOKED worse than Burti's as there was more debris flying about and it looked worse. But in terms of injury i feel we all agree that Burti's was worse. Maybe Luke hasn't understood\the question. IMO

D

[Kicking-back]

That was my point

I had assumed the thread was about which crash actually had the worst consequences as opposed to which looked most spectacular.

I actually believe Burti's looked worst too - because we know that a sudden stop with no debris flying around is often critical.

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by Dan Fielden

Maybe Luke hasn't understood\the question.

What question was that then?

[luke]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

What question was that then?

Originally Posted by Dan Fielden

Luke what for u was a worrying crash?

And I answered it.

[Ian Sowman]

You sure did!

[Kicking-back]

The 2004 British Grand Prix crash for Jarno Trulli was visually spectacular - but the first time we saw it on TV was as a replay when we'd already seen he was out and okay.

If we'd seen that live it would have been a worrying one for a few seconds - as rolling in a gravel trap is always potentially serious.

[luke]

..............

[R]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

I had assumed the thread was about which crash actually had the worst consequences as opposed to which looked most spectacular.

In that case there's no contest, is there? Monza 2000 and Australia 2001 had by far the worst consequences.

[Kicking-back]

Absolutely - I should have said I was thinking in terms of driver injury.

But I agree, a marshals death or a spectators death is the worst possible outcome from motorsport - and so often these go unregarded.

[Adam43]

We've had a couple of crash threads recently and I for one have been surprised how well they have gone. They are not my cup of tea - they can be ill judged, but also maybe I try not to think of such things(?) Unfortunately crashing is a part of our sport and I see no reason why they can't be discussed, even in a light hearted way when the situation allows.

I think the discussion over what people mean has all been a little pedantic. As a starting point it is a given that any member doesn't wish harm, enjoy the bad crashes or any such thing. Getting tripped up over the odd sentence can be just as upsetting as a callous remark. It also doesn't help us discuss an interesting part of our sport.

Anyway, back to the thread...

[Teretonga]

burti's crash didn't look as spectacular as others, especially from the camer angles used. what makes a crash really dangerous is the likelihood of a basal skull fracture and Burti's crash was a candidate for such an injury. I just happened to have watched the Ozzie GP last night where JV had his collision with Ralf and there is no doubt that it was VERY spectacular yet with little injury to the driver because of the way the enrgy was absorbed in the accident. burti's was the classic hard hit wherethe car stops abruptly and the amount of G force on the driver is huge.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by luke

Look here, Dan asked me which was my worst crash I have seen. And told him.
Why is it every time I give my view on a subject you always have to disagree with me.
I'm entitled to my opionin.

Funnily enough, i'm with Luke on this one. The Sato/Hiedfeld crash, to me, was visually more distressing than any of the others, the resulting outcome for Burti was worse, obviously, but he was ok and thats the main thing.

[ASCII Man]

I saw Burti's crash at Spa and somehow I always knew Burti was gonna be okay.
Jacques & Ralf's crash at Melbourne '01 was pretty much the worst though IMO...

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

I saw Burti's crash at Spa and somehow I always knew Burti was gonna be okay.

I have to say, that for about the last 7 or so years, when there has been an accident that was visually very bad, i have been 90% certain that the driver was going to be ok.

[pirenzo]

I thought Ralph Firman's smash in Hungary when his wing fell of was a pretty massive shunt too. The only thing is by the time ITV showed it I knew he was OK already, but even so it was an enormous impact.

[Irv the Swerve]

The Burti crash, hands down, definately got that sinking feeling. Irvine's reaction was the key, he knew Burti was in trouble straight away. It was certainly a harrowing few minutes. Everyone konws that feeling at race circuit, when there's been a serious accident with the outcome still unclear. Not nice.

[Raglanparade]

Ralph Firmans crash IMHO was worse then Burti's

[codename_47]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

If we'd seen that live it would have been a worrying one for a few seconds - as rolling in a gravel trap is always potentially serious.

Not really, rolling can dissapate the energy in a crash over many successive small impacts, rather than one big one as you get against a barrier/tyre wall etc.

Micheal took his roll in Melbourne 2001 and said there wasn't any big impacts, just bounce bounce bounce...

Which is why I feel all this Tarmac run off is a bad idea......ok, it may be better than sand in normal circumstances, but it doesn't take into account all the factors
It presumes:

A) The Car has Brakes
B)The Car has wheels
C)The track is dry.

I'd much rather roll through a gravel trap in the wet than aquaplane to a barrier without shrugging off any speed!

[codename_47]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Funnily enough, i'm with Luke on this one. The Sato/Hiedfeld crash, to me, was visually more distressing than any of the others, the resulting outcome for Burti was worse, obviously, but he was ok and thats the main thing.

Actually, there could be a bit of a schism here between those that saw it on F1 Digital, and those that saw it on ITV...

On F1 digital, you saw the full horror of the shunt from high over turn 2, brief flame, debris shower, etc, and Takuma, although moved initially, then sat in his car for a long while without moving (in hindsight he was probably instructed to do this over the radio, "just in case" perhaps)

On ITV, you saw Heidfeld spin, then a large pile of dust......maybe that doesn't look so bad, but the mind has a habit of painting in what you miss in these situations, and you always imagine these things ending up worse than they actually look!

So, while one set of viewers were faced with harsh reality, the others, harsh fantasy....which is worse??

Discuss!

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by codename_47

Actually, there could be a bit of a schism here between those that saw it on F1 Digital, and those that saw it on ITV...

On F1 digital, you saw the full horror of the shunt from high over turn 2, brief flame, debris shower, etc, and Takuma, although moved initially, then sat in his car for a long while without moving (in hindsight he was probably instructed to do this over the radio, "just in case" perhaps)

On ITV, you saw Heidfeld spin, then a large pile of dust......maybe that doesn't look so bad,

I saw it on F1 Digital

[oziengineer]

Ralph Firman's was pretty big, and I can't say I remember the Burti one. Kimi's Hockenheim accident was also *******' huge.

[DNQ]

There are four accidents that stand out above any other -

Luciano Burti, Spa, 2001: can anyone forget the frantic scenes of Eddie Irvine helping marshalls remove tyres from around the destroyed Prost?

Pileup, Monza, 2001: Another fatal accident. Remember seeing the TV footage of rescue workers resucsitating 'someone' behind the barriers.

Villeneuve/Ralf, Albert Park, 2001: Just shocking, the detail of some of the photos, showing the shocked expressions in the audience amidst flying debris, bring out the violence of the accident.

Ralf, Indy, 2004: Where were the rescue teams? Why no red flag? Terrible.

[Jordi]

Burti's was worrying. When a race is stopped...

These days, you kind of expect the driver to always jump out okay, so when he doesn't, it's worrying. The thing I remember about Jacques' Melbourne 2001 crash is the fact that you don't see where his car ends. There are pictures of the car parked, but you don't see how it comes to a stop.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by codename_47

I'd much rather roll through a gravel trap in the wet than aquaplane to a barrier without shrugging off any speed!

Possibly, but if I'm going to roll, I want the car to begin its roll on tarmac, where the roll bar won't dig in.

If my initial landing is upside down in gravel, the roll bar could dig in, and my head will take the impact.