Seat Eurocup Incident at Brands Hatch

[jordan81]

Originally Posted by westfieldbend

I remember Joe Osborne at the chicane at Thruxton, but that's a single seater.

If there was a debris fence it would have probably caused the car to end up on the marshals/unimog/ambulance, so could have caused more harm then good.

I assume you mean the LEON ending up on the marshals ectc, because the Osbourne car was stopped by the fence at Thruxton.

The F3 car of Bruce Jouanny was not however and made it though the spectator area.

[westfieldbend]

Originally Posted by jordan81

I assume you mean the LEON ending up on the marshals ectc, because the Osbourne car was stopped by the fence at Thruxton.
.

Yeah, sorry made that a bit confusing!! Was behind the fence at Thruxton.

[westfieldbend]

Hi all,

I have realised that some of my earlier postings may have been inaccurate. When I used the term 'rotten' I was simply referring to older posts within the row of Armco, I was not meaning to imply that these were of a standard that they should not have still in place. I was merely implying that some degree of rotting may have taken place as they were sections of wood that had been in the ground for a period of time.

Upon discussing the situation with my engineering materials lecturer at college I have been advised that unless the amount of rotten material was substantial (which it obviously wasn't as then they would have been replaced by the brands maintenance team), there would been little effect on the overall structure of the barrier, and that the result would have almost certainly be the same if the posts had be replaced the day before! He thinks it was purely down to the huge forces involved due to the way the car was knocked off the circuit that causes the car to become airborne.

I was only approaching the situation as a keen engineering student at college and I not expect my conclusions to be correct, I was just having a go at explaining what may or may not have happened. Maybe I shouldn't have done this given the seriousness of the situation at the present time, I almost certainly should have given my conclusions more thought before posting them in the public domain.

WestfieldBend.

[Piglet]

Nice climbdown....I imagine he used the word defamation in the discussion as well?

[Bodysnatcher]

defamation/deformation all sounds the same to me...
but to a lawyer?

Reading Autosport today, looks like JP is going to investigate seriously.

Driving standards were the primary cause of the incident, the subsequent car hitting barrier at the unexpected angle of nearly 90 degrees was the secondary.

Seeing as we (marshals.. race control) at Brands Hatch MSVR meetings are finally taking reporting of 4wo seriously in practice & qualifying, I feel clerks must take stronger action against repeat offenders.

Not just the wiping of fast laps, as suggested by Piglet (from a well informed position, but still an assumption nevertheless)

Strangely, the actual driving standards in p & q tend to be reasonable given that they're not normally contesting the same space on track.

How feasible would it be to not let them start the race in some of these "dodgem" series if it got as far as black flag in 2 pre race sessions? (2 pre race sessions would be indicative of a "professional series"). Any FIA/International clerk got the balls for that?

Still won't stop the dodgem drivers during the race and we've all seen how some will ignore black flags..suggestions?

[grantp]

Taking Bodysnatcher's idea ... something along the lines of ...

Any avoidable collision that results is a car going off the circuit or serious visible damage more the a 'paint rub' requires the driver to sit out the next session whatever and wherever that session might be.

So in a series that has P, Q and 2 races ....

Incident in P means missing Q and starting at the back - possibly with a delayed start penalty to try to prevent mayhem through forceful drving at the start.

Incident in Q means missing R1. Incident in R1 means missing R2.

Incident in R2 means missing P at the next meeting.

For 2 incidents in the same session .... miss the next 2 scheduled sessions.

If that did not work then something more radical will be required.

I have half a mind that teams should be allowed to field the car anyway but with a substitute driver. That would give tham coverage for the sponsors and, perhaps, put pressure on the primary drivers to behave knowing that there are others hanging around waiting to take their place ...

[westfieldbend]

Originally Posted by Piglet

Nice climbdown....I imagine he used the word defamation in the discussion as well?

We have always used the term deformation

Didn't really have a long enough discussion to go into that much detail! College finished a few weeks ago so I just popped in on my way to the town center. (Yes the lecturers are there and getting paid throughout the summer.... Thats probably more a 'parc ferme' topic though!)

[TalkToFrank]

Originally Posted by westfieldbend

Hi all,

I have realised that some of my earlier postings may have been inaccurate. When I used the term 'rotten' I was simply referring to older posts within the row of Armco, I was not meaning to imply that these were of a standard that they should not have still in place. I was merely implying that some degree of rotting may have taken place as they were sections of wood that had been in the ground for a period of time.

Upon discussing the situation with my engineering materials lecturer at college I have been advised that unless the amount of rotten material was substantial (which it obviously wasn't as then they would have been replaced by the brands maintenance team), there would been little effect on the overall structure of the barrier, and that the result would have almost certainly be the same if the posts had be replaced the day before! He thinks it was purely down to the huge forces involved due to the way the car was knocked off the circuit that causes the car to become airborne.

I was only approaching the situation as a keen engineering student at college and I not expect my conclusions to be correct, I was just having a go at explaining what may or may not have happened. Maybe I shouldn't have done this given the seriousness of the situation at the present time, I almost certainly should have given my conclusions more thought before posting them in the public domain.

WestfieldBend.

Your college lecturer didn't happen to have the same name as JPs lawyer by any chance??

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Bodysnatcher

defamation/deformation all sounds the same to me...
but to a lawyer?

Nice word play

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by westfieldbend

I was only approaching the situation as a keen engineering student at college and I not expect my conclusions to be correct, I was just having a go at explaining what may or may not have happened. Maybe I shouldn't have done this given the seriousness of the situation at the present time, I almost certainly should have given my conclusions more thought before posting them in the public domain.

WestfieldBend.

Good post, that will have taken some thought and I congratulate you on it.

Actually, you didn't post without thinking - and so many do - but apart from some unfortunate wording that may have implied fault, it was a reasonable question. It also allowed the discussion to follow so that all those who were thinking it but not saying it were given an extra understanding of the way armco works.

[stuart thompson]

Noticed yesterday on my wander out onto the GP circuit, the spectator fencing has been angled back and banking has been re profiled. If the same accident occured now the car would have landed between the armco and spectator fence.