Motor Racing can be bloody stupid

[Valve Bounce]

A Racing driver was killed when his car crashed through a barrier into a concrete wall and burst into flames at Eastern Creek raceway in Sydney yesterday. I watched the news clip in horror because this was a straight track where the car was doing 300 kph and then just ran straight on through a flimsy barrier at the end and into a concrete wall. The rear tyre was smoking well before the end of the track but the car did not slow, maybe because of a stuck throttle or some other reason. There is more: it took over 90 seconds before a fire extinguisher reached the scene. I posted this on this forum simply because there have been a helluva lot of discussions about excessive safety provisions at F1 circuits. I just cannot believe how anyone could run any sprint along a straight track where the car reaches 300 KPH and the track ends at a concrete wall. How bloody stupid can that be? I, for one, am glad there are good run off areas at corners of F1 tracks, (except Monaco), and I only hope that the safety people will realise that these should be paved with asphaltic concrete and not filled with sand. Thank goodness that motor sport is generally run under the umbrella of the FIA, and all local motor sport organisations should be affiliated, and the safety requirements at all events should at least meet the minimum standards set out. I would like to see what CAMS (Australian authority) has to say about the safety provisions at this circuit.
I accept that motor sport can be dangerous, and F1 is no exception. But I am thankful that the FIA have been very active to minimise the danger in the sport, without taking away the speed and the spectacle so that we can appreciate the skill of the drivers.

[Wrex]

I saw that too and was equally horrified. Not sure what happened but CAMS really does need to look at the end of that straight. Is'nt that where Mark Skaife crashed a couple of years ago very badly?

Let's hope Aussie GP is without any serious injuries.

[DNQ]

Yep, that was a terrible crash. Sickening, seeing the car in flames, without anyone helping to extuingush them. Terrible.

[Valve Bounce]

Suely they could have provided a utility vehicle with a couple of fire extinguishers in the back for the marshals. And a concrete wall at the end of hte straight to block off the runoff?? Maybe we should think more carefully in future before we roast the FIA when they try to instigate more or new safety provisions. Apart from when F1 was reduced to 1.5 litres unblown, I don't think the FIA has truly and deliberately meant to demean F1.

[djb]

Hello V.B.

Not a happy post to read, a heartfeld sorry to the fellows' family and friends.

This made me reflect on some thoughts I have had a few times over the last number of months since I stumbled upon 10/tenths. There are often posts that bring up the topic of how the racing in F1 particularly is so boring compared to yesteryear. While in general, I agree with this, and can complain about the lack of passing, treads vs slicks, too much aerodynamics etc along with the rest of them, but I am never comfortable with views that drivers nowadays are mamby pambies compared to drivers from before.

Your comments touch on the whole issue that, yes, while cars from 50, 40, 30 or 20 years ago were real beasts to drive, and the drivers "real men" to drive and fight with them, the safety standards were always considered better than in years previous, and the drivers just dealt with the reality of their times. It didn't change the fact that they were rolling gas tanks ready to rupture, or flimsy chassised things with the drivers' legs stuck farther out than the front axles, just waiting to do horrible things to the forementioned legs.

All this is to say that I agree with you re: that the FIA and company are not making changes just for the fun of it, and while some of the changes are pretty darn stupid, in general, the advancement of safety is not something to poo-poo at.

Last summer I met a fellow who had raced in Can-Am in the 60's and said that he had been in the same team as the rookie Gille Villeneuve in the Formula
Atlantic series here in Canada. His carreer ended in a crash at Trois-Rivieres (I think) where he became a stereotype of a crash of that time-terrible lower leg injuries-his limp attested to that. Even if the details aren't right, meeting this fellow was a real example of how the improvements to chassis safety improvements, run off areas etc etc (your incident notwithstanding) all have made a difference.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. DJB

[Liz]

There has to be a middle ground though - something between the RC cars driven by little boys with no experience that we have these days, and the big, dangerous beasts that Real Men raced back in the eighties. I am all for safety in daily life, and of course the strengthening of the survival cell, the changes in the seat and the on board fire extinguishers, particularly, are to be commended. But the cars do not need so many automatic systems that they could be driven to victory by, well, me for example.

There is always more that can be done to maximize safety outside the car, and there always will be - better response time, safer corners, soft walls (but not so soft that they don't scrub off the speed), mandatory fire systems and trained marshalls to use them ... but the bottom line is that racing is dangerous. And the cold fact of the matter is that if it is not dangerous, it is not racing. It's an amusement park ride to no purpose but displaying sponsor logos for 90 minutes every other weekend.

[Valve Bounce]

Many of the previous F1 accidents were not in beasts, just cars which by todays standards, lack a lot of safety. The mosthorrific was lorenzo Bandini, and i suppose Jimmy Clark's accident was just totally unecessary because he was racing a F2 car. Having said all this though, that incident at Eastern Ck. was just plain stupid, because the course was dangerous the way it was set up.

[RussianFriend]

Not happy post in two steps before the new season. I regret of this fellow and his family.

I don't know if somebody of you had faced with a such an attitude. But after every accident I can't help thinking of it. Many people strange to F1 consider it as bloody sport as gladiatorial fighting. They still think that anybody of us watches races mainly to see somebodies crash.

But F1 became more safety last several years. More safety than other kinds of autosport. I think other racings deserves such an attention to safety question although they don't have such an audience and funds F1 has. FIA spent a lots of efforts to make F1 more safe. Why they don't use their exrerience in other fields.

[Dan Friel]

A tragic accident..

I'm amazed that the sprint could be allowed to be run at a raceway without being affliated to a proper racing club. All sprints / hillclimbs here (UK) which are run by small motoring clubs have to respect strict safety regulations handed down from the MSA - which in turn is governed by FIA.. It's appalling that this event could have occurred. There's no way I could be doing sprints this year in the knowledge that the nearest fire extinguisher is over 30 seconds away, and to be used by an untrained marshal.

Motor racing will always be dangerous however, no matter how many regulations. Marshals killed at Monza and Goodwood last year for dreadful examples.

[djb]

Liz, I agree that there should be a middle ground; I can complain as loud as the rest of you against traction control, automatic yellow flag engine limiters etc etc, but that really wasn't my point here. It was simply agreeing with V.B. about how ongoing safety changes are for the overall good-as we all agree on.

The TGF's accident today (or yesterday) has painfull similiarities to the Moore accident doesn't it, and with both, removing lips or bumps in runoff areas would have changed how the cars behaved when going sideways.

As you say, racing is dangerous, it is part and parcel with the fact that it is racing. Freak things happen, hell, we could have all seen Carpentier getting decapitated in slow motion by the catchfence last year at Laguna Seca if there had been a few feet of difference! I am of the crowd that believes that the participants are completely aware of what they are doing, with possible conseqences; but this incident that V.B. brought up still shows how bad organizing of tracklayout can still go on. (I say all of this, and still find some damn chicanes and slow corners frustrating in F1....)

[R]

That's true, but making it safer in one aspect can make it less safe in another scenario. The chicanes are there to slow the cars down, hence the intention is to improve safety. But as we saw at Monza, that chicane created the biggest accident of the year, and with a tragic outcome as well. So this is a dilemma, and IMO it's highly debatable whether chicanes improve safety in F1 or not.

Back in "the good ole' days", they thought that by making the cars stronger, drivers would survive big crashes. What happened was that the cars survived, often without a crumple even, whilst the drivers' bodies were exposed to the entire forces of impact, because of the rigour of the cars. So by making changes with the intention of improving safety, you may find that the effect can be quite the opposite.