planetf1.com

Exediron wrote:The problem isn't the tarmac runoff per se - it's the liberties drivers routinely take with them. We had a similar problem in 2014 with drivers speeding through double yellows, which led to Bianchi's tragic accident. The FIA needs to do something about drivers just flooring it through the runoff in case of an accident.

I think this is a totally different problem, although I understand where they are connecting. It's not an easy task for the FIA, and Masi isn't having it easy in his first year.

It just makes you appreciate even more what Charlie had to deal with all the years "in office".

I don't think that a solution is as clear cut as it seems, and especially for those taking the decision they will have to go one way or the other, and be responsible for it.

Think I mentioned it earlier but would the high-attrition run-off as used at Paul Ricard be a solution? It's designed to slow cars down whilst keeping them 'stable.' A driver is not gong to slow down simply because he is off-circuit, so the surface has to play its part. As said, gravel (and I'd add grass) creates its own issues and standard tarmac will not slow the cars down.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I've been calling for an end to paved run-offs for several years now for this very reason and have even written the FIA with zero response ever.
Gravel traps force drivers to be tidier and abide by track limits whereas run-off gives them this sense of screw it I'm going to exceed limits as much and as often as I can until I get penalized and the racing is lesser because of it. I find it preposterous that ALL drivers whine and complain that the speed of the track prevent's them from adhering to track bounds, yet if you place a wall there they have no issue staying within track limits.

It's an argument that has always had ZERO merit. As James Hunt said about Rene Arnoux on live television… It's Total BS.

Indeed tarmac run off areas do not encourage drivers to slow down, Hubert had crashed and was off the track but still exposed to a car hitting him at full speed.

Precisely.

People fail to realize that a gravel trap there would have slowed all cars going off significantly enough that perhaps Hubert doesn't suffer life ending injuries.

That's not the case though. They were brought in partly because cars skipped over the top of gravel and hit the barrier hardly any slower than when they left the track. On tarmac, cars still have grip so brakes work and friction from tyres when a car spins scrubs off speed.

Asphalt_World wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I've been calling for an end to paved run-offs for several years now for this very reason and have even written the FIA with zero response ever.
Gravel traps force drivers to be tidier and abide by track limits whereas run-off gives them this sense of screw it I'm going to exceed limits as much and as often as I can until I get penalized and the racing is lesser because of it. I find it preposterous that ALL drivers whine and complain that the speed of the track prevent's them from adhering to track bounds, yet if you place a wall there they have no issue staying within track limits.

It's an argument that has always had ZERO merit. As James Hunt said about Rene Arnoux on live television… It's Total BS.

Indeed tarmac run off areas do not encourage drivers to slow down, Hubert had crashed and was off the track but still exposed to a car hitting him at full speed.

Precisely.

People fail to realize that a gravel trap there would have slowed all cars going off significantly enough that perhaps Hubert doesn't suffer life ending injuries.

That's not the case though. They were brought in partly because cars skipped over the top of gravel and hit the barrier hardly any slower than when they left the track. On tarmac, cars still have grip so brakes work and friction from tyres when a car spins scrubs off speed.

tootsie323 wrote:Think I mentioned it earlier but would the high-attrition run-off as used at Paul Ricard be a solution? It's designed to slow cars down whilst keeping them 'stable.' A driver is not gong to slow down simply because he is off-circuit, so the surface has to play its part. As said, gravel (and I'd add grass) creates its own issues and standard tarmac will not slow the cars down.

Although I also think tarmac is generally safer, there is always that case when the car is missing tires, and just skids. This I think was the case with the crash involving Hubert.

I personally think that had there been gravel in place and having the same circumstances, Hubert would have probably flipped, but I can't really tell you if before the initial contact with the barrier or after ( as it was missing it's wheels and the velocity was quite high ).

Now, had there Hubert not been hit at that angle, he would have escaped serious injury. But he would have definitely sent Correa flying, probably into the trees at high speed.

I think there are a lot of IF's in this case, and I think FIA has more data for better analysis.

paul_gmb wrote:With all due respect, putting gravel there would maybe prevent such an event, but it opens doors to other events.

Runoffs with tarmac are really useful in a lot of situations. They have been introduced for safety reasons in the first place.

Regarding deaths on tarmac vs gravel, I don't know if there's a direct correlation. Because tarmac runoffs have been introduced in the last 20-25 years, most of the deaths have occurred in areas with gravel.

I am not saying that gravel caused them, I am just saying that a statistical comparison would not make sense, as the cars have been much safer in the past years and it coincides with the introduction of tarmac runoffs.

Unfortunately, this kind of incident could happen just as well on the track with a car spinning.

I don't really know what to say. Weren't tarmac run-offs introduced precisely because the cars would slow down? Cars with wheels on I mean.

Once u lose control, it's very hard to slow down and of course, tarmac doesn't make it any easier.

It's not possible to make the sport 100% safe but in relation to this incident, Correa would certainly not want to go into a gravel run off at full speed the moment he saw an accident ahead of him. He would likely slow down to avoid a gravel trap knowing that it would be the end of his race.

Let's not forget Hubert was hit off track, a place where drivers shouldn't be racing on but when it's tarmac, the temptation is always there and Correa did just that, to his and his fellow driver's detriment.

Asphalt_World wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I've been calling for an end to paved run-offs for several years now for this very reason and have even written the FIA with zero response ever.
Gravel traps force drivers to be tidier and abide by track limits whereas run-off gives them this sense of screw it I'm going to exceed limits as much and as often as I can until I get penalized and the racing is lesser because of it. I find it preposterous that ALL drivers whine and complain that the speed of the track prevent's them from adhering to track bounds, yet if you place a wall there they have no issue staying within track limits.

It's an argument that has always had ZERO merit. As James Hunt said about Rene Arnoux on live television… It's Total BS.

Indeed tarmac run off areas do not encourage drivers to slow down, Hubert had crashed and was off the track but still exposed to a car hitting him at full speed.

Precisely.

People fail to realize that a gravel trap there would have slowed all cars going off significantly enough that perhaps Hubert doesn't suffer life ending injuries.

That's not the case though. They were brought in partly because cars skipped over the top of gravel and hit the barrier hardly any slower than when they left the track. On tarmac, cars still have grip so brakes work and friction from tyres when a car spins scrubs off speed.

Magnussen lost control on the same corner before with tarmac. The only difference was no one hit him after.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but how haunting is this to watch now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4rxMAbeE-M

That end of the run off area needs changing IMO. Seems to deflect cars back towards oncoming traffic. Perhaps tech-pro barriers would rebound less than tyres too.

paul_gmb wrote:With all due respect, putting gravel there would maybe prevent such an event, but it opens doors to other events.

Runoffs with tarmac are really useful in a lot of situations. They have been introduced for safety reasons in the first place.

Regarding deaths on tarmac vs gravel, I don't know if there's a direct correlation. Because tarmac runoffs have been introduced in the last 20-25 years, most of the deaths have occurred in areas with gravel.

I am not saying that gravel caused them, I am just saying that a statistical comparison would not make sense, as the cars have been much safer in the past years and it coincides with the introduction of tarmac runoffs.

Unfortunately, this kind of incident could happen just as well on the track with a car spinning.

I don't really know what to say. Weren't tarmac run-offs introduced precisely because the cars would slow down? Cars with wheels on I mean.

I'm not sure if they can slow down more quickly or they are able to keep better control of their cars, but that's the problem often they don't slow down at all and because they have better control of their cars then the run off areas can then merely be used as an extension of the track without the need to lift or slow down.

Banana Man wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before but how haunting is this to watch now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4rxMAbeE-M

That end of the run off area needs changing IMO. Seems to deflect cars back towards oncoming traffic. Perhaps tech-pro barriers would rebound less than tyres too.

Well we're back to oncoming traffic shouldn't be able to race in run off areas.

pokerman wrote:

Banana Man wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before but how haunting is this to watch now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4rxMAbeE-M

That end of the run off area needs changing IMO. Seems to deflect cars back towards oncoming traffic. Perhaps tech-pro barriers would rebound less than tyres too.

Well we're back to oncoming traffic shouldn't be able to race in run off areas.

What proof do you have that Correa took the conscious decision to speed across the run-off zone? Until there is some it is quite disrespectful to imply that he did so.

I think it is rather beside the point anyway. So long as the barrier and run-off zone have the potential to deflect a car back close to the line of fire then the chance of this sort of incident will still exist, and there are numerous examples from the past that highlight that the run-off there is insufficient.

Asphalt_World wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I've been calling for an end to paved run-offs for several years now for this very reason and have even written the FIA with zero response ever.
Gravel traps force drivers to be tidier and abide by track limits whereas run-off gives them this sense of screw it I'm going to exceed limits as much and as often as I can until I get penalized and the racing is lesser because of it. I find it preposterous that ALL drivers whine and complain that the speed of the track prevent's them from adhering to track bounds, yet if you place a wall there they have no issue staying within track limits.

It's an argument that has always had ZERO merit. As James Hunt said about Rene Arnoux on live television… It's Total BS.

Indeed tarmac run off areas do not encourage drivers to slow down, Hubert had crashed and was off the track but still exposed to a car hitting him at full speed.

Precisely.

People fail to realize that a gravel trap there would have slowed all cars going off significantly enough that perhaps Hubert doesn't suffer life ending injuries.

That's not the case though. They were brought in partly because cars skipped over the top of gravel and hit the barrier hardly any slower than when they left the track. On tarmac, cars still have grip so brakes work and friction from tyres when a car spins scrubs off speed.

Exactly. Remember Burti's incident from 2001? He skipped straight over the gravel and made a sickening impact with the barrier and he missed the rest of the season. I'm very much in favour of bringing back gravel traps in general, but tarmac run-offs at the very fast corners really need to stay because above a certain speed the gravel is just not effective. The issue here isn't the tarmac itself, it's that the run-off zone just isn't big enough for the speed of the corner.

It has emerged Sean Gelael avoided serious injury all thanks to the halo. There was a huge chunk of debris tossing over on the racing line when Sean drove into it. The carbon fibre debris struck the main pillar of the halo, without which it could've struck his helmet!

pokerman wrote:

paul_gmb wrote:With all due respect, putting gravel there would maybe prevent such an event, but it opens doors to other events.

Runoffs with tarmac are really useful in a lot of situations. They have been introduced for safety reasons in the first place.

Regarding deaths on tarmac vs gravel, I don't know if there's a direct correlation. Because tarmac runoffs have been introduced in the last 20-25 years, most of the deaths have occurred in areas with gravel.

I am not saying that gravel caused them, I am just saying that a statistical comparison would not make sense, as the cars have been much safer in the past years and it coincides with the introduction of tarmac runoffs.

Unfortunately, this kind of incident could happen just as well on the track with a car spinning.

I don't really know what to say. Weren't tarmac run-offs introduced precisely because the cars would slow down? Cars with wheels on I mean.

I'm not sure if they can slow down more quickly or they are able to keep better control of their cars, but that's the problem often they don't slow down at all and because they have better control of their cars then the run off areas can then merely be used as an extension of the track without the need to lift or slow down.

I was focusing mainly on situations where they still have control over their car and all the wheels on. I guess the extra braking space and effect will definitely help.

From what I see on this thread, even with little data as we have, there is still a lot of debate, and constructive points. You can just imagine how difficult this is for the FIA, with extra data available.

Someone mentioned about Correa intentionally not braking. It's a tough one to judge, as I guess there are a lot of situations where instinctively a driver will reduce speed just a little. I guess even if he did not lift off on purpose, it wasn't really a judged intention rather a racing instinct.

I still keep to my point, that given what happened on Saturday, the angle of the crash killed Hubert. A different angle would have saved Hubert, but would have probably sent Correa flying into the trees and seriously if not fataly injure him.

paul_gmb wrote:
I still keep to my point, that given what happened on Saturday, the angle of the crash killed Hubert. A different angle would have saved Hubert, but would have probably sent Correa flying into the trees and seriously if not fataly injure him.

It wasn't any single factor but a combination of factors that contributed to Hubert's death.

The track design, type of runoff, location & design of barriers, weather, the point of Alesi's spin, the angle of Huberts car when it hit the barriers & when it came to rest, Correa being off track & at speed, the design of the cars. All these factors played their part & if you change just one of those factors, even slightly, we would probably have ended up with a different result.

Like almost any other accident, the pieces for this accident were beginning to be put in place years ago, it just all culminated in what happened on Saturday.

j man wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Banana Man wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before but how haunting is this to watch now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4rxMAbeE-M

That end of the run off area needs changing IMO. Seems to deflect cars back towards oncoming traffic. Perhaps tech-pro barriers would rebound less than tyres too.

Well we're back to oncoming traffic shouldn't be able to race in run off areas.

What proof do you have that Correa took the conscious decision to speed across the run-off zone? Until there is some it is quite disrespectful to imply that he did so.

I think it is rather beside the point anyway. So long as the barrier and run-off zone have the potential to deflect a car back close to the line of fire then the chance of this sort of incident will still exist, and there are numerous examples from the past that highlight that the run-off there is insufficient.

Tarmac run off areas don't deter drivers to slow down, we apparently see Correa locking his brakes just before he hits Hubert's car, with a gravel trap I think that amount of urgency to slow down would have occurred earlier?

Jezza13 wrote:

paul_gmb wrote:
I still keep to my point, that given what happened on Saturday, the angle of the crash killed Hubert. A different angle would have saved Hubert, but would have probably sent Correa flying into the trees and seriously if not fataly injure him.

It wasn't any single factor but a combination of factors that contributed to Hubert's death.

The track design, type of runoff, location & design of barriers, weather, the point of Alesi's spin, the angle of Huberts car when it hit the barriers & when it came to rest, Correa being off track & at speed, the design of the cars. All these factors played their part & if you change just one of those factors, even slightly, we would probably have ended up with a different result.

Like almost any other accident, the pieces for this accident were beginning to be put in place years ago, it just all culminated in what happened on Saturday.

I was referring only to the angle at which Correa hit Hubert's car.

T-bone accidents will always be the worst. Track configuration cannot address this. We are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I remember the 60's and 70' when we lost a couple drivers every year (minimum).

Racing is so much safer today, that it sometimes convinces drivers to push the envelope beyond what they ever did 30-40 years ago.

Leave Eau Rouge/Raidillon alone.

Also don't know if the tarmac being there was a root cause overall for drivers like Correa speeding through the crash zone or not. I'm not a very good racer on PS4 but I realised one thing! Tracks which have run off areas I try to be as fast as possible or even get aggressive during the turns with more speed as I know there's a tarmac runoff area as a buffer. I'm quite carefree on a track such as Russia which only has runoff areas but am very cautious on tracks like Suzuka or Spain which has kitty litters all around.

I’m a bit surprised there isn’t a spare chassis available for Boschung to race this weekend. I’d have thought Dallara had a spare somewhere which can be used until the Belgian investigators are done with Alesi’s Spa Chassis.

This video of the accident is very detailed in it's analysis & answers a lot of questions.

It also details how effective the Halo is &, if it were not for those safety devices, we could easily be mourning the loss 3 drivers at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE5nq6lqI9g

Edit - For those not wishing to see the major impact, while there is footage of other impacts, each where the drivers survived, there is no footage of Hubert's & Correa's impact.

Just a thought on how to widen the run off at the top of Radillon.

If we see below, there plenty of room to expand the run off area


http / \this/is/a_picture/of_Radillon.com/ which_is_in/Belgium

The problem is that the terrain slopes quiet dramatically down just a few metres on the other side of the barriers.

There's quite a straight forward solution to this problem that'd allow for a very large run off area. It' be pricey. It'd take a while & it'd mean the removal of many tree's which is a big issue these day's but in the end it'd solve a lot of problems.

Picture something like this on a much bigger scale.


http:/ a_deck/made/of_of/timber/with/a_power/lead/running/across_it

It was interesting hearing on the Sky F1 coverage earlier, that they seemed to say that the tub of an F2 car passes the same tests and an F1 car's tub. This is perhaps slightly worrying as an F1 car is heavier and travels faster than at F2 car.