Official 2014 Japanese Grand Prix Thread #ForzaJules

Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But having said that, I don't think we can fully
> eliminate freak accidents like this one. Having
> seen the footage, there is strong reason to
> believe, that Bianchi never would have hit the
> tyre barriers, even if the JCB was not working on
> that part of the track. It seems very likely that
> he would have slid into the gap between the
> barriers, and I don't think that would have panned
> out a whole lot better than what actually
> happened.

THIS!!!.

it's very easy to point the finger to FIA, FOM, and the comercial partners and organizers of the race, but the truth is, freaky accidents will always happen.
i've never heard about the double yellows flags tbh, i wasn't aware it indicated a "high dangerous zone", but i bet drivers have and i'm not inttending to put the blame on Jules himself, but the marshals did put some measures to indicate that the zone was not "safe to race".

This was really really a bad luck day and hopefully Jules pulls out of this one.
#FORZAJULES

The zone was green when he got there we'll post 12 was, no idea what the flag was at post 11.

He went off at post 12 but lost control between 11 and 12.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2014 10:49PM by marcl.

The emphasis is on the word accident. Plenty of factors may well have contributed; fading light, the rapidly deteriorating weather, the fact that Jules was racing on worn inters, but ultimately it was a freak accident, a cruel matter of chance.

We've seen similar incidents before, you might remember the race at the Nurburgring in 2007. Tonio Liuzzi was one of about six cars that went off in the heavy rain early on at Turn 1. He spun and came to a rest against the recovery vehicle on that occasion. Jules was not so fortunate on Sunday.

Here's hoping he pulls through. I sat down with him for a one-on-one interview in Spa and he came across as a driven, well spoken, somewhat shy, young man, standing on the cusp of greatness in the sport. #ForzaJules

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

marcl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The zone was green when he got there we'll post 12
> was, no idea what the flag was at post 11.
>
> He went off at post 12 but lost control between 11
> and 12.

Yeah I am aware of news articles milking the amateur footage that shows this. But it is inconsequential. Post 11 was double yellow. The point of yellow marshall posts, is to signal danger ahead, not at the actual post where the danger is located. Post twelve, where the marshalls worked was indeed green. The rules are such, that you may only resume racing after you PASS the green flag, which in terms of safety in the situation, is correct. So it shouldn't have influenced the accident.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2014 11:57PM by Morbid.

Seen the video by a spectator at Suzuka. Shocking view of the crash.

WARNING! Not a nice video.

[www.facebook.com]

and
[www.dailymail.co.uk]


Green flag was waving in the tower! Tractor should not be on track when cars are still going and no safety car yet. Just like Brundle's crash in 1994 at same track with similar conditions.

Poor Bianchi. Could have been any of them. Is there some complacency creeping in?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2014 12:31AM by Elio2013.

I just don't like it that people are saying the crash was his own fault as he was driving to fast under yellow flags, were the yellows really out or had they all gone green?

The point I'm saying is even going slow you can spin as the caterham did.

I still cannot get over how shocking the video is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2014 12:10AM by marcl.

Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But having said that, I don't think we can fully
> eliminate freak accidents like this one. Having
> seen the footage, there is strong reason to
> believe, that Bianchi never would have hit the
> tyre barriers, even if the JCB was not working on
> that part of the track. It seems very likely that
> he would have slid into the gap between the
> barriers, and I don't think that would have panned
> out a whole lot better than what actually
> happened.

Having seen the photos (somewhat relieved to have seen the helmet intact), I'm guessing that it's about 5 metres between that tyre wall and the concrete wall seperating it from the 130R's exit.

Scary, makes you think how lucky the guy is just to be alive right now.

---

GPGSL -
GPGSL-3 - Pizza Party Racing manager and driver
Nations Cup - Team Scotland manager

Yes, it is hard to believe he was not killed instantly. helmets are certainly very strong these days.

Let hope and pray for a full recovery.

Roll hoop totally removed.

WARNING AGAIN!

[richardsf1.com]

Sickening footage, and explains why both the BBC and Sky were so slow to notice Bianchi had crashed - the car just plain vanished, and into a place where you wouldn't expect to ever see one. An accident as freak as it was horrible.

At least he's stable - like many have said, a minor miracle that it wasn't even worse.
Hoping he pulls through, my deepest thoughts are with him.
#ForzaJules

---

One thing driven home for me in that video is,
I dont blame wet race,lack of safety car,FIA, FOM ....per se'

But operationally that Tractor & those marshals should not have been there period
If Jules had been 1-2 meters left of his impact he would be gone now & perhaps a marshal or two with him.
It just looks so wrong to have people & heavy equipment on unprotected track-side with cars still circulating

If Jules had hit Sutils beached car or the tire barriers it would have been a small event in comparison

Elio2013 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seen the video by a spectator at Suzuka. Shocking
> view of the crash.
>
> WARNING! Not a nice video.
>

Why are you posting these links, when everybody else have shown restraint in doing so? Why do you think we did that?

> Green flag was waving in the tower!

No wrong there. Read the thread.

> Tractor
> should not be on track when cars are still going
> and no safety car yet.

Please cite the appropriate section of the FIA regulations, that stipulate that. If you cannot, stop trying to whip up scandal.


flying Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But operationally that Tractor & those marshals
> should not have been there period

Make with the proof from the appropriate safety regulations. If you cannot do that, then shut up. Period.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Quote
Ferrari2007
The emphasis is on the word accident. Plenty of factors may well have contributed; fading light, the rapidly deteriorating weather, the fact that Jules was racing on worn inters, but ultimately it was a freak accident, a cruel matter of chance.

It was not a freak accident. Freak would imply there was little chance of another car going off there. Sutil had aquaplaned the lap before on worn inters and the conditions were surely only worse the following lap, which meant it was likely another car on similar tyres could do exactly the same. A freak accident would have been two cars crashing in one corner on subsequent laps when the conditions were dry with no outside influences (oil, debris, etc).

Same with Nurburgring 2007. Same with Interlagos 2003. Same with Suzuka 1994. And probably many others too.

Speaking of which, I posted on another forum last night that that Interlagos 2003 was quite striking in similarities of the crash. Every car which crashed at turn 3 spun or spun into the barrier. Except for Button, who overcorrected, the car gripped, then spat him nose first into the tyre wall at almost unabated speed. This is what was supposed to have happened to Bianchi - overcorrected, then fired straight to the scene of the accident.

According to Sutil, he went off because there was a puddle in that corner, that was not there on the previous lap. I think it is safe to say, that it was the same puddle that Bianchi caught and made him lose control. Sutil said it was impossible to see the puddle, because of the poor lighting conditions. If he is right, then there is a simple fix. Mandate that every race is to be held at 14.00 local time unless the track is sufficiently lit up, like Singapore. That is a price I would gladly pay for safety. I'll watch the broadcast regardless of the hour it is sent. If I am hindered, I'll record it.

An it was a freak accident. It was extremely unlikely and unusual. We haven't seen anything like this in years, if ever. When was the last time, we had a car seriously connect with a recovery vehicle? If Sutil couldn't see the puddle, who could? Who was going to report it to race control? You have the luxury of hours, even days of thinking this through, and you have a ton more information than race control did. They probably had less than a minute from being notified to having to make the call, if it was to be a factor in preventing this accident. I totally agree with Lauda, when he says, that the FIA did everything right, but it in the end it was wrong.

And even if it was a mistake, then you are not going to have a race control, where they are not made. I used to see a woman in a romantic fashion, who was employed at a major University hospital in Denmark. She was the linkage between the senior management and all the injury critical departments. According to her, as much as 1 in 5 operations had mishaps of importance during the procedure. Some departments could get down to 1 in 7, but it proved close to impossible to get any lower. Mostly, those mishaps could be fixed while the doctors were in the OR, but a small portion panned out in such a way, that the patient was left with adverse effects, and sometimes very serious adverse effects. These surgeons are top trained professionals and experts in their fields. I don't know of any vocation that has a longer education and training attached to it. Yet they still make mistakes on a weekly basis, while they literally hold other people's lives in their hands.

If you think, we are ever going to get a race control, that gets everything right, which seems to be at the core of your argument, then you are sorely mistaken. The best we can hope for, is that they follow protocol. Protocol exists as a set of heuristics, that suggest the best course of action, when there isn't enough time or information to analyse and judge a situation of importance and get it right. Protocol eliminates much of the need for analysis and significantly shortens the time necessary to make a good call. But even protocol will fail from time to time.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2014 08:59AM by Morbid.

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of which, I posted on another forum last
> night that that Interlagos 2003 was quite striking
> in similarities of the crash.

The most striking for me was Schumacher's crash, missing the JCB by a fraction. I still find myself wincing whenever I see that one.

---

Quote
Morbid
An it was a freak accident. It was extremely unlikely and unusual. We haven't seen anything like this in years, if ever. When was the last time, we had a car seriously connect with a recovery vehicle? If Sutil couldn't see the puddle, who could?

Oh the fact he connected with the tractor was a freak, don't get me wrong, but the fact he went off in exactly the same place wasn't.



If a safety car wasn't deemed necessary then we need to drill it into drivers that they have to start obeying yellow flag zones again (but that in itself could be a hazard if one drivers spots it and 'prepares to stop' in front of another driver). Setting fastest sectors where there's a yellow zone is an archaic way of doing it, as if you've just changed to inters or slicks and could be setting a sector 5 seconds faster, are you really going to go 4 seconds slower over the rest of the sector just because you had to slow briefly for a yellow?

What we really need is slow zones, as seen at Le Mans this year (and probably other races too) where the cars are forced to go at a certain speed over a fixed point. It would have prevented this accident, wouldn't need a safety car in the majority of cases, wouldn't leave it up to the driver how much to slow down and wouldn't wipe out disadvantages drivers have built over their opponents (and crashgate wouldn't have happened). The FIA have all of the resources available and most of them are already installed at the tracks. The cars already have access to them (the lights on the dashboard and delta times). Heck we as fans even have access to them on our mobiles in the live timing app!

The problem is the FIA are always reactive. They usually wait on a bad accident before adjusting the rules to try to minimise the chances of it happening again, and if another series does it first, they seen to take even longer for whatever reason (and pride is not a valid reason). If Alonso had been hit by Grosjean at Spa, or Wurz by Coulthard at Melbourne, canopies or some form of additional cockpit protection would almost certainly have been introduced, but they missed them, so hey ho. After Imola and Monaco 94 we had the plank, airbox hole, smaller engines, raised cockpit sides, wheel tethers, wheel retention technology, etc all introduced at some point in the following years. If just the raised cockpit sides (which really should have been obvious - it wasn't even the first incident that year where a driver had been hit in the head!) had been introduced Senna might well have survived. Perhaps even Ratzenberger.

I'm not saying everyone should have foreseen this unfolding before them, but it clearly had the potential for it, and that should have been blatantly obvious to everyone whether you're in a car, sat in the control tower, sat on a pratt perch or sat on your arse at home.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2014 10:05AM by gav.

A lot of people forget this one as well and how lucky Alesi was. This was from 1990 Canada and shows what happens if you just leave a car in a run off area. So you either put the safety car out everytime someone stops or you carry on as it is.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2014 11:02AM by marcl.

I can't really connect with the FIA always been reactive. First of all, we learn through experience. That is how things go. Secondly, your statement requires that the FIA have not made a single independent initiative in 20 years. That is some bold statement. I'd like to see some documentation on that.

And while we are talking about documentation, let's have a look at some numbers, so we can compare F1 safety to other activities.

Let's quantify it a bit, and take on average 20 cars at 17 races for each season for the last 20 years. Let's assume that each car averages 700 kilometres for each event. It's rough numbers, I know, but I simply don't have the time to research it with more accuracy. You are welcome to do so, if you think it is unfair.

That leaves us with 20*17*700*20 for a grand total of 4.760.000 kilometres, and that is not even including the massive testing that went on in those years, which could easily see the numbers multiplied several times. But I am deliberately taking the very conservative approach, and not including testing. So, that is assuming the worst case scenario for this weekend (and I really hope that won't be the case), 1 fatality per 4.760.000 kilometres travelled in the post Senna era.

How does that stack up to, say everyday automotive safety? And before proceeding any further, how many of you would consider NOT driving a car in the UK, Norway, South Korea, Brazil or the United Arab Emirates, because it would be far too dangerous? How many of you would not buy a pony for your daughter, or discourage a professional career riding horseback, because it is too dangerous? Take minute to come up with some answers before you proceed.

.
.
.
.
.

That done, let's see what the WHO has to say about automotive transportation safety around the globe.


Source: [en.wikipedia.org]

In South Korea, they have 22,8 fatalities per billion kilometre travelled. That is 1 fatality per 43.859.649 kilometres travelled. Safety minded UK has 4,3 fatalities per billion kilometres, which translates to 1 per 232.558.139 kilometres travelled. The Czech Republic has 15,7 fatalities per billion kilometres travelled. That is 1 in 63.694.268 kilometres travelled. In Brazil, they have 55,9 per billion kilometres travelled. That is 1 fatality per 17.889.087 kilometres travelled. The worst place to drive would be the UAE with 310 fatalities per billion kilometres travelled, which is 1 per 3.225.806 kilometres. The best place is Norway with 3,3 fatalities per billion kilometres, which is a ratio of 1 to 303.030.303.

So in multipliers, how much more dangerous is F1 compared to everyday driving across the planet?

Norway: 63,6 times more dangerous
UK: 48,9 times more dangerous
Czech Republic: 13,3 times more dangerous
South Korea: 9,2 times more dangerous
Brazil: 3,8 times more dangerous
UAE: 1,5 times LESS dangerous!!!

It's shocking to say the least, that there are countries where it is just 1/4 of the F1 risk, or even WORSE than F1, to drive to visit your uncle, go to work, or some leisure time activity!

The Bridgestones were tested for 17.000 kilometres between 4 teams, just in the pre-season testing for 2004. This does not cover other testing purposes, nor does it cover in-season testing. That would be 42.500 kilometres of pre-season tyre testing for 10 teams, if all was similar with Michelins, for one season. If that was average for 20 years (which I know it is not), that would be an additional 850.000 kilometres, just for pre-season tyre testing. Even today, with testing very limited, the grid ran 36.950 kilometres of pre-season testing, all types accounted for. Ferrari proposed late in 2004 to cut testing by limiting it to a maximum of 15.000 kilometres per team. For 10 teams over 20 years, that would be an additional 3.000.000 kilometres. If all testing, for all seasons where to be included I think we easily could divide these risk ratios by 3. But I am not going to do that. I am just putting these numbers out there, to put the calculated risk ratios in perspective.

Comparing the dangers to something as normal as horseback riding, about 7 million people indulge in this every year in the US.

Source: [www.riders4helmets.com]

In 2007, 79.279 people visited emergency wards because of equestrian related injuries. That is a risk factor of 1 person per 89,4 that take part in the activity. Of those, 11.579 came in for head injuries. That is 1 in 604,5 participants. About 100 casualties are recorded each year, that is 1 in 70.000. So comparing to fatalities, horseback riding is a much safer activity. Yet the injury rate demanding emergency room treatment tells a different story. 89,4 a year translates roughly into 3-4 seasons of F1 when we count driver participation, Friday testers and mid-season driver changes included. How many do we see each year, that need to go to the emergency room, not for checks, but for treatment of injuries? It's what 3-5 each year? So in terms of injury demanding treatment, F1 is roughly 14 times more dangerous than horseback riding. I doubt many parents think of that when they buy their teenage daughter a pony. And if we told them that, they would probably reconsider doing that!

Just in the UK alone, there have been 2 deaths in professional horse racing in 1992-2000, and 8 in 1975–2000.

A study from the US from 1995, following 706 experienced professional jockeys, that averaged 600 races a year each, found 1757 reported injuries. These jockeys run between 1 and 12 races per day. Which in F1 terms means (averaging 6 races per day), 18 races to an F1 weekend. 600 races per rider / 18 = each rider had 33,3 F1 comparable events. 1757 injuries for 702 riders is 2,5 injuries per rider. 33,3 events / 2,5 injuries per rider = an injury for each rider for each 13,32 F1 comparable event! That would see the whole F1 grid injured on average more than once each season! And these injuries are no joke! They are distributed as follows:

Quote
Linked source paper
fractures were the most common (64% of total injuries) followed by concussion (8%) and joint dislocation (7%). Of the fractures, 41% were upper limb, 24% were lower limb, 12% were rib fractures, 10% were spinal fractures, and 9% were skull fractures, and 3% were hip/pelvis fractures.

Imagine that, seeing a skull fracture in F1 each and every season, 4-6 broken arms, 2-3 broken legs or feet, 2 cases of fractured ribs, 1 fractured spine, and the occasional fractured pelvis to boot, and that is only covering 2/3 of the injuries! Then we have concussions, dislocated joints and other injuries.

And these are just some hard and fast numbers I could dig up in about an hour.

Is F1 safe? No. Is it as safe as driving your car to work? Shockingly, that really depends on where in the world you are! Is it better to be an F1 driver, than a professional jockey? Probably yes!

Do we have an F1 safety calamity on our hands... really, I don't think so.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2014 12:36PM by Morbid.

There's no way on earth I'm reading that lump of text as if I need to reference it we'll be here all day and go way off topic, and frankly I've got better things to do.

So I'll stick with your opening paragraph and say once more you're taking something someone says as an absolute. You seem incapable of taking the jist of what people say. Of course they've made initiatives, but there'll be more after this. And there'll be more after the next time someone is injured. Yet in the times someone has nearly been injured but avoided it, it seems seldom is anything done - other than the ever increasing impact protection, the one exception I can think of immediately is them greatly increasing the lateral load a roll bar can take after Diniz's was sheared off at the Nurburgring.

Sunday's accident was avoidable and that cannot be argued against. Whether it's down to drivers obeying flags and respecting marshals, or race control reacting faster, or whether a means should have been introduced to limit the speed a driver can go through a zone, it was avoidable.

They will learn from this, of course, and a kneejerk reaction is wrong, but they've had the means and method to prevent that accident from occurring, or certainly occurring to a lesser extent, and haven't implemented them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2014 12:38PM by gav.

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no way on earth I'm reading that lump of
> text as if I need to reference it we'll be here
> all day and go way off topic, and frankly I've got
> better things to do.

It wouldn't even take you 10 minutes to read. If you cannot do that, what's the point of having a discussion?

> So I'll stick with your opening paragraph and say
> once more you're taking something someone says as
> an absolute. You seem incapable of taking the
> jist of what people say.

Always means "every time; on every occasion; without exception". If you added typographical embellishment of cursive, how I am not supposed to read this literally? I don't understand how reading this literally is a sign of some sort of mental deficiency on my part.

> Of course they've made
> initiatives, but there'll be more after this. And
> there'll be more after the next time someone is
> injured accident. Yet in the times someone has
> nearly been injured but avoided it, seldom is
> anything done - the one exception I can think of
> immediately is them greatly increasing the lateral
> load a roll bar can take after Diniz's was sheared
> off at the Nurburgring.
>
> Sunday's accident was avoidable and that cannot be
> argued against.

All accidents are avoidable. Simply don't race. Done. However, once you put cars on the track, you are going to have accidents. The point is not if is was avoidable. The point is, can we realistically avoid those in the future, without butchering the sport?

> Whether it's down to drivers
> obeying flags and respecting marshals, or race
> control reacting faster, or whether a means should
> have been introduced to limit the speed a driver
> can go through a zone, it was avoidable.

I am sure various options will be discussed. I think mandating the race to 14.00 local time would be a good start. This particular accident would probably not have happened if it was so.

> They will learn from this, of course, and a
> kneejerk reaction is wrong, but they've had the
> means and method to prevent that accident from
> occurring, or certainly occurring to a lesser
> extent, and haven't implemented them.

Do you mean this literally? Or should I read the jist of it and just respond with general statements and weak platitudes?

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2014 12:50PM by Morbid.