Japanese GP 2009 - Suzuka

[mx_tifoso]

There were numerous wall shunts this weekend, and the most serious 'injury' was a superficial leg wound. Walls really aren't that bad .

[PlatinumZealot]

Wound?! That was a huge ass rip in the flesh! Glock is going to be scared for life from that thing. Looks like it went from knee to ankle..

[djos]

or better yet slamming into a wall and dying! Pay up silly driver!

[-X

[andartop]

or better yet slamming into a wall and dying! Pay up silly driver!

They could also slam into each other and die, should F1 change to a WRC-like format to avoid crashes altogether?

Now, how about having deep pits around the track instead of walls, filled with piranhas and alligators?

[Richard]

From autosport.com

Q. We saw this weekend quite a few big accidents, mainly from rookies. Some drivers complain that this is a bit of a dangerous circuit. What do you think?

Kimi Raikkonen: I think it is a dangerous sport. This is more a kind of old-style circuit. The new circuits have a lot of run-off with asphalt, so it makes no difference if you make a mistake, you can usually get back on the circuit. Here, if you make a mistake you are usually going to hit the wall and I think that is how it should be. You get punished for the mistakes and it makes it more exciting, and I think you need to be more precise.

Ive heard Martin Brundle literally berating those run off areas for softening the sport...

Agreed. I prefer the races when there are a high number of DNFs. This should be an endurance sport where drivers have to battle reliability and the track to get to the finish.

We need rough run off areas that penalise a driver for going off track. Then we'd have less interference from the stewards because off line cars would drop places, or limp back to change a front wing.

[WhiteBlue]

Glock's accident wasn't such a trivial thing. Did anybody ask himself why a driver got wounded on the leg? My impression (and that was first spotted by Sky commentator Jaques Schulz) was that the monocoque actually broke. It is not supposed to do that. In my view that accident must be investigated if the structural integrity of the tub was exceeded.

Regarding the issue of sufficient run offs I would not make any compromises. What is happening on old tracks with small or no run offs we saw with young Surtees at Brands Hatch. If cars do not get decelerated sufficiently far from the track they can bounce back and debris will have a higher probability to get back on track.

The asphalt run offs are also well justified because they help with deceleration and keeping the car in control when they have left the track. We just need the stewards to act properly on incidents where cars leave the track. Drivers should not be allowed to use the run off to join the track in better or equal position and if a driver is forced off track it should be punished as if there is a wall or trees. The track is for racing and the run offs are off limit.

Spa is notorious for the abuse of the run offs and la Source is the longest standing example of such abuse. 2007 we saw drivers forcing each other off the track there and nothing happened. 2009 the abuse had developed to such a degree that Kimi used the run off to gain a place going round the outside on the run off. I think there should be amendments to the rules to avoid such things.

[raceman]

if the monocoque broke, is Toyota F1 under FIA investigation then??

[axle]

Glock's accident wasn't such a trivial thing. Did anybody ask himself why a driver got wounded on the leg? My impression (and that was first spotted by Sky commentator Jaques Schulz) was that the monocoque actually broke. It is not supposed to do that. In my view that accident must be investigated if the structural integrity of the tub was exceeded.

I don't think Broke is the right word. It was an aluminium item that caused the injury. This limits it to a part of the suspension or the steering column. So the monocoque might have been penetrated but not broken if you see what I mean. Broken to me means snapped off or split into more than 1 piece. Where as penetration is single point damage.

[Miguel]

When Alonso crashed in Brazil 2003, the biggest "injury" he had was caused by one of the pedals after one foot slipped. This was pointed out by Antonio "I love Fernando" Lobato on the TV as soon as he heard about a possible leg injury (Q3 was still going on). I remember that on Kubica's crash in Montreal his feet were visible, too.

Anyway, I still can't understand how Glock would crash there. It's even more unexplainable than Alguersuari's crash in 130R: new tyres, not too much fuel, and a corner that is flat out even on mixed conditions (I've lost my admiration for that turn). I know someone will say that new tyres are the factor, but after 5 km of esses and hairpins they surely are in decent conditions.

[Richard]

Regarding the issue of sufficient run offs I would not make any compromises. What is happening on old tracks with small or no run offs we saw with young Surtees at Brands Hatch. If cars do not get decelerated sufficiently far from the track they can bounce back and debris will have a higher probability to get back on track.

The asphalt run offs are also well justified because they help with deceleration and keeping the car in control when they have left the track. We just need the stewards to act properly on incidents where cars leave the track. Drivers should not be allowed to use the run off to join the track in better or equal position and if a driver is forced off track it should be punished as if there is a wall or trees. The track is for racing and the run offs are off limit.

Spa is notorious for the abuse of the run offs and la Source is the longest standing example of such abuse. 2007 we saw drivers forcing each other off the track there and nothing happened. 2009 the abuse had developed to such a degree that Kimi used the run off to gain a place going round the outside on the run off. I think there should be amendments to the rules to avoid such things.

Don't get me wrong, generous run offs are required for safety. They just need to to be rough & awkward enough to penalise drivers who use them, just like the chicane at Monza. That means stewards have no need to interfere and "ruin" the race.

[WhiteBlue]

Don't get me wrong, generous run offs are required for safety. They just need to to be rough & awkward enough to penalise drivers who use them, just like the chicane at Monza. That means stewards have no need to interfere and "ruin" the race.

I'm afraid that you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you put anything like curbs into asphalt run offs you are defeting the objective of slowing the cars down at maximum rate in case of desaster. It will fall to sensible application of rules and penalties to stop drivers abusing run offs.

[WhiteBlue]

Glock's accident wasn't such a trivial thing. Did anybody ask himself why a driver got wounded on the leg? My impression (and that was first spotted by Sky commentator Jaques Schulz) was that the monocoque actually broke. It is not supposed to do that. In my view that accident must be investigated if the structural integrity of the tub was exceeded.

I don't think Broke is the right word. It was an aluminium item that caused the injury. This limits it to a part of the suspension or the steering column. So the monocoque might have been penetrated but not broken if you see what I mean. Broken to me means snapped off or split into more than 1 piece. Where as penetration is single point damage.

Penetration of the monocoque is not a good thing either. In any case it warrants an investigation with the aim of preventing such things to happen again. A penetrating object could have hit an artery and caused Glock to bleed out in a few minutes.

[WhiteBlue]

Anyway, I still can't understand how Glock would crash there.

Glock wasn't well that weekend. I believe he made a mistake due to being unfit to drive.

That was a high pressure environment with Toyota reportedly wishing for an all Japanese driver line up next year.

[Richard]

Don't get me wrong, generous run offs are required for safety. They just need to to be rough & awkward enough to penalise drivers who use them, just like the chicane at Monza. That means stewards have no need to interfere and "ruin" the race.

I'm afraid that you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you put anything like curbs into asphalt run offs you are defeting the objective of slowing the cars down at maximum rate in case of desaster. It will fall to sensible application of rules and penalties to stop drivers abusing run offs.

There are solutions other than kerbs. For Spa, they could use the polystyrene blocks they had on the chicane at Monza this year. They could be placed on the exit of the run off to slow a car's return to the track.

[ISLAMATRON]

I like those things and the wild explosions they make when hit by the cars, plus they add sponsorship space to the track. Not a bad Idea at all.

Now, how about having deep pits around the track instead of walls, filled with piranhas and alligators?

Or that could work too.