Safety of car recovery (and trucks on circuits)

[the_end90]

I think that for this terrible Impact changing recovery vehicles is not the way to follow. There is more that can be done, and not at the expense of the circuits. For me is much better to use safety cars if the track is in tricky conditions like it was in this case

[xDama]

It should be simple: exterior vehicle + marshalls on-track > SC or at least special warning flags. Double yellows do not cut the risk, especially on the outside of a corner like Dunlop.

[Andres125sx]

IMHO if they continue using diggers/cranes for cars recovery, they should use bumpers to avoid if things go wrong, it´s the helmet the first part to receive the impact (I´ve just watched the slow motion video and I´m still shocked, I´d be really surprised if he survive)

This is not first time I think about this terrific posibility, not even second, but many times. This was another good example when only luck allowed none got injured
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JUz9BDrXQ[/youtube]

Someone said using bumpers/barriers for the cranes will never help the Marshals, and that´s true, but at least we would avoid this sort of fatalities

To protect Marshals too there´re two options, stop using diggers and start using telescopic cranes (if that´s the name in english) as they do in Monaco. I mean one of this

It will be more expensive, but safety wise, it´s well worth

But that also have a problem, when a car is seriously damaged at the front or rear and have lost front wheels and nose for example, it´s difficult to recover with a crane because it´s unbalanced. For those cases the only safe option is slowing down the cars to pit-lane speed, or 100km/h for example


Anycase I´m wondering.... what´s the responsability of Pirelli here? Everybody knows these wet tires are rubbish. This also remind me something I´ve wondered more than once. If they (FIA) is so concerned about cornering speed, they should put a new regulation, minimal free height. These cars suffer from aquaplanning too easily, in my understanding (correct me if I´m wrong) because of the rubbish tires, and because of the low height. If heigh would be higher, they would not suffer from aquaplanning that easily so cars would be slower at cornering, and safer in the wet


I personally think best option would be using bumpers for the cranes (that´s a must no matter what more options are used), I´d force Pirelli to develop his wet tires much more, new regulation about minimal free height, and maybe limiting track speed when situation is very difficult like when hard rain.



PS: some people is talking about low visibility. That´s not a problem, when there´s low light it´s much easier to see the lights on your wheel, and they have a yellow light there showing yellow flag zone, so I´m pretty sure Jules knew he was on yellow flag zone

[SectorOne]

IMHO if they continue using diggers/cranes for cars recovery, they should use bumpers to avoid if things go wrong,

Once again, have you ever wondered why they have such big wheels and that type of ground clearance?

[Andres125sx]

IMHO if they continue using diggers/cranes for cars recovery, they should use bumpers to avoid if things go wrong,

Once again, have you ever wondered why they have such big wheels and that type of ground clearance?

Yes, I´m construction engineer and have contracted some

Diggers usually work on very rough environements with very irregular terrain, mud, etc. so they need very good clearance. Not the case when they´re on a track, so they don´t need that front/rear clearance at all, those that work on tracks could use bumpers all around perfectly

[SectorOne]

Diggers usually work on very rough environements with very irregular terrain, mud, etc. so they need very good clearance. Not the case when they´re on a track, so they don´t need that front/rear clearance at all, those that work on tracks could use bumpers all around perfectly

They need the ground clearance because of the gravel traps. If you start building safe zones around the vehicles you increase the chance of them to get stuck. So when one is stuck you now have a bigger problem.

These won´t work in gravel traps,


I´d also like to know your thought process when you decide between modifying a truck for millions of dollars (which it should be said are trucks owned by the track, not FIA) to a 60km/h slow zone.
I just want to know how you come up with an answer that is several orders of magnitude more expensive, won´t stop F1 cars hitting solid objects at well over 100km/h and is just generally a huge hassle to do as opposed to a system already in place in motorsport, tried and tested with success that would even allow the Safety Car to stay in 99% of the times because it´s rendered useless.

How does these barriers increase the safety of the marshals when F1 cars are hauling at them at over 100km/h?
I´m dying to know this.

[WaikeCU]

what about a hovercraft recovery vehicle?

This is no topic for jokes. I am serious about what I posted. Some form of modification to recovery vehicles should be considered. You do not want F1 cars going underneath them at high speed.

Who said I was? A hovercraft is sealed on all sides, because it sticks to the ground. The inflated skirt is in some way kind of like a tire wall, but can it be used as a crane?

[Shrieker]

The 60 km/h limited zone is the most efficient idea brought up in this thread that would've prevented this or a similar accident. It's successful application before also makes it prime candidate.

In addition to the speed limit, the rule book should be written in a way that will penalize drivers trying to make up time when entering the said speed limited zone - they should be forced by rules to slow down from racing speed gradually and in a controlled manner. And not like those banzai pit entry stuff.

[CBeck113]

Who said I was? A hovercraft is sealed on all sides, because it sticks to the ground. The inflated skirt is in some way kind of like a tire wall, but can it be used as a crane?

If the seal on the hovercraft skirt is "broken", it will drop like a rock to the ground, so no, that would not be an alternative.

The root cause (cars driving too fast near a recovery site) must be eliminated, not the symptoms (cars hits recovery vehicle so the recovery vehicle needs to be altered). THIS problem, had it been already solved, would have avoided Jules' accident. All other proposals regarding yellow flags, barriers on recovery vehicles, etc. as well as "it should have been red flagged because of Adrian's accident" are simply bullshit. The FiA wasn't lax about the safety during the race, we just saw an accident with a recovery vehicle for the first time, which exposed a flaw in the standards: The cars are traveling too fast past the accident scenes, especially when vehicles and/or personelle are on the track

[Phil]

Yea he probably had his foot on the brake ready to push it if things turned nasty.
But this is exactly the problem. When it did go nasty he was travelling at 200km/h.
Not puttering around at 60km/h. I don´t need to tell you how many orders of magnitude safer that is compared to 200 clicks.

My take is that the problem lies in the exact definition of double waved yellows. Actually, the definition is good, but the enforcement is not. Double waved yellows means, and I quote (from wikipedia, none-the-less): Two waved yellows at the same post indicates great danger ahead. Drivers must slow down and be prepared to stop; no overtaking is permitted unless a driver is lapped.

IMO this sufficiently covers most eventualities, if enforced properly. Now, this accident took places under unpredictable circuimstances. There was a lot of rain and there was standing water. One way or the other; the driver is in the best possible position to make a clear judgement on how slow is slow enough to not be a danger to yourself or others. An added problem is that not all cars are equal; Some have more downforce, allowing for greater grip and then you have different tyre compounds (inters and extreme wets) with varying degrees of tyre state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time Massa was complaining that the race should be stopped 5 laps before Sutil went off, he was on intermediates, possibly worn. Both Sutil and Bianchi, if I am correct, were also on worn intermediate tyres.

For the most part, most did not pit at the time they should have, because they knew doing so would put them ~23 seconds back, so they were effectively trading off track position for safety. Predicting weather is always going to be rather unpredictable - so it's always a gamble, one way or the other.

The problem I see is no matter what you do for safety - introducing closed canopy or enforcing pit-limiter modes - you will never cover all eventualities. Motorsport is inherently dangerous. We've been very fortunate the last 20 years that there weren't any fatal accidents - but we've come pretty close numerous times. Times when drivers have effectively walked away without a scratch, but could have lost their lives. Webber's flip comes to mind, even Kubica's crash a few years back, or most recent, Heidfeld in Formula E. Those all could have had very nasty outcomes but more by sheer luck, didn't.

Bianchi's accident is really nasty, but it's also to some degree a freak accident. What were the chances that he would hit the tractor in exactly the moment it was backing up in reverse to secure the track? Had he been a moment before or later, he most probably would have hit the barrier which would have absorbed a great deal of the impact and like Sutil before, would have walked away without a scratch. I think if anything, the double waved yellows should be enforced better in that drivers would need to reduce their speeds more than they did in that section of the track.

[the_end90]

Permit me to disagree. Yes, Bianchi´s accident was due to Freak condition, but my Point is: what could we learn? that double waved yellow were insufficient because Drivers can decide how fast take to Corner and much can be gained taking it a Little faster and in most of the cases the risk is negligible, but in this case it was not.
Bianchi did as many others did (I fully remember Schumacher taking a yellow Zone almost flat out and being under Investigation for that, and we all see that yellow zones are almost ignored by Drivers except for the no overtakes rules), so why don´t we put, for extremely dangerous conditions where the yellow is insufficient a Speed Limit? I mean, this years was used at the 24h of Le Mans and it was Genius for me

[SectorOne]

My take is that the problem lies in the exact definition of double waved yellows. Actually, the definition is good, but the enforcement is not. Double waved yellows means, and I quote (from wikipedia, none-the-less): Two waved yellows at the same post indicates great danger ahead. Drivers must slow down and be prepared to stop; no overtaking is permitted unless a driver is lapped.

But the whole rule is one giant grey zone when you think about it.
That bolded part just makes everything wide open and prone to be abused by drivers taking part in a race with a lot at stake.

I agree that we can´t make the sport completely 100% safe but in this case i think it´s not the best idea to have cars doing 200 clicks past a dangerous area when there´s massive objects and people on track.

A short local speed limit zone is much more easy to police.
Was he on the pit limiter as he crossed the beacon? No? Drive through penalty.
Second infringement? DSQ.

The pitlane is arguably the safest area on the whole track so naturally that´s the way to go in danger zones around the track.

[Phil]

I agree. The problem only is; in one area under one set of conditions, 200kmh might be adequate, where as in another, it be way too dangerous. In that sense, every part of the track and every single incident is unique. I would think (hope) that the driver is best able to judge to what degree he must slow down to be able to cover those eventualities. Evidently, most drivers do not and adding rain and standing water to the track (coupled with worn tyres), it becomes even more of a problem. It's hard to think of a way how this accident could have been avoided, but at the same time, think of examples where even with more messures, it wouldn't.

Joe Saward made a rather good point in his last entry regarding Bianchi's accident. For all the criticism on the use of tractors to clear the track, the tractor had nearly cleared the accident within 2 minutes (the time when Sutil crashed and until Bianchi came around a lap later). That's extremely quick IMO.

[Tim.Wright]

The pitlane is arguably the safest area on the whole track so naturally that´s the way to go in danger zones around the track.

In my opinion the pit lane is clearly the most dangerous part of the track. Even in the circa 20 years that there have been speed limits implemented, the number of injuries in the pitlane significantly outnumber those elsewhere on the circuit.

I agree. The problem only is; in one area under one set of conditions, 200kmh might be adequate, where as in another, it be way too dangerous.

A nominal speed limit of 100km/h which reduces as a function of the steering wheel angle will take care of that and would be dead easy to implement in the SECU

The trick is to find a robust way to start it for every driver at the same time. I personally don't trust radio/data/GPS transmission systems for such a critical job. They simply aren't reliable enough and there is no fail-safe condition. When they fail you can easily have 200km/h speed differentials between 2 cars. It needs to be something initiated by the driver. In my experience: where there is wireless transmission there are problems. And you can't afford problems on a safety system.

Then you can use radio/data/GPS systems to monitor the drivers and hand out penalties. That way, if there is a system malfunction, the worst that happens is someone misses a penalty.

[Phil]

The trick is to find a robust way to start it for every driver at the same time. I personally don't trust radio/data/GPS transmission systems for such a critical job. They simply aren't reliable enough and there is no fail-safe condition. When they fail you can easily have 200km/h speed differentials between 2 cars. It needs to be something initiated by the driver. In my experience: where there is wireless transmission there are problems. And you can't afford problems on a safety system.

Exactly. As a driver you want predictability, not some system that suddenly kicks in. In that sense, if ever such a system was to be implemented, I'd agree that it should definately need to be driver initiated. If he fails to comply, you can dish out penalties.