Formula One fatalities.

[countersteer]

Thought this might be of interest. Among other things, it notes the mandated enhancements of the spec tub to prevent intrusion injuries. The tub was originally built to FIA standards. The enhancements are above and beyond those requirements and will add 20 pounds (!) to the weight of the tub.

http://www.racer.com/major-indycar-chas ... /326601/3/

[xpensive]

What was left of Jo Siffert's BRM P160 after his 1971 crash at Brands Hatch;

The World Championship Victory Race at Brands Hatch, Kent, England, the scene of his first and greatest victory in 1968. The suspension of his BRM had been damaged in a lap 1 incident with Ronnie Peterson, and broke later. This was not admitted by BRM until much later when this fact was accidentally divulged by a BRM ex-mechanic.[2] The BRM crashed and immediately caught fire. Siffert could not free himself from the burning car.
This accident led to a rapid overhaul of safety, both in-car and on circuit. In the subsequent Royal Automobile Club (the UK organising and regulatory representative of the FIA at the time) investigation it was discovered that the crash itself caused non-fatal injuries but Siffert had rather been killed by smoke inhalation. None of the trackside fire extinguishers worked, and it was found to be impossible to reach the car and extract Siffert because of the extremely intense fire. On-board fire extinguishers (using BCF—bromochlorodifluoromethane, an aircraft product) became mandatory and piped air for the drivers, direct into their helmet. Thus, perhaps one of the sad epitaphs of Seppi was the focus on vehicle and driver safety in Formula One and lesser formulae and far better fire retardant driving overalls.

[xpensive]

This is privateer John Woolfe with his new Porsche 917 at the Le Mans 24 hours of 1969, the first year the twelve cylinder machine had taken part. At this time the mighty Porsche was a particularly difficult beast to master due to aerodynamic instability in low-downforce "langheck" xecution and this was the first car Porsche had sold to a customer, at 16 000 GBP.

At the high speed section at Maison Blanche he put two wheels on the grass and lost control of the vehicle. Woolf's car hit the barrier, overturned and slid down the track upside down splitting into two parts. Due to the traditional run to the cars that took place at the time, John did not have his safety belts on. Woolfe had been thrown clear at the point of impact and his fuel tank was ripped off and ran over by Chris Amon's Ferrari 312 P.

Amon suffered minor burns, John Woolfe died instantly.

[GitanesBlondes]

It's easy to forget how dangerous the 917 was initially, since the teething issues it had with stability was later overshadowed by the success the car would have.

Great pictures.

I happened to find this one I forgot I had on my computer from Kyalami 1977 after Tom Pryce hit Van Vuuren on the straight. It's graphic, but sobering as to how easily a life can be cut short in motor racing.

[dren]

We all know this crash. Amazing how far safety has come in F1 for Kubica to survive this crash.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtrzvwayniM[/youtube]

[Gridlock]

I don't understand a human surviving this. That's his helmet hitting the fence no? Amazing.

I don't think it's appropriate to argue how far F1 has come without remembering we lost a marshal just this year, and apparently through a poor prioritisation of safety behind sporting interests (the agreement stated cars had to be returned to pit before end of race, from memory? Or at least protected from fans, which is why they were rushing).

[GitanesBlondes]

http://i.imgur.com/oh4yJ4d.jpg

I don't understand a human surviving this. That's his helmet hitting the fence no? Amazing.

I don't think it's appropriate to argue how far F1 has come without remembering we lost a marshal just this year, and apparently through a poor prioritisation of safety behind sporting interests (the agreement stated cars had to be returned to pit before end of race, from memory? Or at least protected from fans, which is why they were rushing).

His helmet makes contact with the tire, you can make out the yellow lettering on it. Either way he was extremely lucky to get out of that with only injuries to his legs.

I've always felt of anyone, Nelson was perhaps the luckiest driver who ever lived.

[xpensive]

As a side note to the above piece on John Woolfe, Jacky Ickx who often were at odds with Jackie Stewart on safety issues, in particular on racetracks such as the old Spa Francorchaps, did this at the 1969 Le Mans;

As Ickx was opposed to the traditional Le Mans start which he considered to be dangerous, he slowly walked across the track to his machine, instead of running. He locked the safety belt carefully and thus was the last to start the race, chasing the field. On lap one, a tragic event proved that Ickx was right: private driver John Woolfe, who had not taken time to belt himself in, had a fatal accident in his new and powerful 917.

The following year the running start was no more at Le Mans, thus Jacky Ickx did far more in terms of safety than Jackie Stewart ever did when it came to real actions and not just talk, as the latter proved to the world at Kyalami later on.

[stefan_]

One of the darkest (if not the darkest) weekend in Formula 1.

1994 San Marino Grand Prix (Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari)

Roland Ratzenberger (30.04.1994)

Twenty minutes into the final qualifying session, Roland Ratzenberger failed to negotiate the Villeneuve curva in his Simtek; he subsequently hit the opposing concrete barrier wall almost head-on and was critically injured. Although the survival cell remained largely intact, the force of the impact inflicted a basal skull fracture. Ratzenberger, in his first season as a Formula One driver, had run over a kerb at the Acque Minerali chicane on his previous lap, the impact of which is believed to have damaged his front wing. Rather than return to the pitlane, he continued on another fast lap. Travelling at 190 mph (306 km/h) his car suffered a front wing failure leaving him unable to control it.

The session was stopped while doctors attended to Ratzenberger. The session was restarted approximately 25 minutes later, but several teams—including Williams and Benetton—took no further part. Later in hospital it was announced that Ratzenberger had died as a result of his multiple injuries. His death marked the first Formula One race weekend fatality since the 1982 Canadian Grand Prix when Riccardo Paletti was killed. It had been eight years since Elio de Angelis died testing a Brabham car at the Circuit Paul Ricard. Professor Sid Watkins, then head of the Formula One on-track medical team, recalled in his memoirs Ayrton Senna's reaction to the news, stating that "Ayrton broke down and cried on my shoulder."




Ayrton Senna (01.05.1994)

On lap 7, the second lap at racing speed, Senna's car left the racing line at the 190 mph Tamburello corner, ran in a straight line off the track and struck an unprotected concrete barrier. Telemetry shows he left the track at 310 km/h (190 mph) and was able to slow the car down by braking to 218 km/h (135 mph) in slightly under 2 seconds before hitting the wall. The car hit the wall at a shallow angle, tearing off the right front wheel and nose cone, and spun to a halt. After Senna's car came to a halt, he was initially motionless in the cockpit. After about ten seconds, from the close-up aerial footage, his head is seen to move about one inch to the left before returning to where it was. Then, he never moved again. What appeared to have happened was that the right front wheel shot up upon impact and entered the cockpit, striking the right frontal area of his helmet. The violence of the wheel's impact pushed his head back against the headrest, causing fatal skull fractures. A piece of suspension attached to the wheel had partially penetrated his Bell M3 helmet and caused trauma to his head. In addition, it appeared that a jagged piece of the upright assembly had penetrated the helmet visor just above his right eye. Senna was using a medium sized (58 cm) M3 helmet with a new "thin" Bell visor. Any one of the three injuries would probably have killed him.

After the crash it was immediately evident that Senna had suffered some form of injury, because his helmet was seen to be motionless and leaning slightly to the right. The subtle movement of his head in the seconds that followed raised false hopes.

[Tim.Wright]

The Senna crash has always been an fascinating one for me because I remember watching it at the time and there are so many things still unsolved. Unfortunately all attempts at a technical discussion all degrade into a ying yang.

I hadn't seen that last picture before. Its interesting because there are clear tyre marks right at the front edge of the cockpit which I hadn't noticed before. The crack in the forward left side of the cockpit also shows that monocoques still had some way to come in terms of strength. I recall a few occasions shortly after '94 where the crash test were made significantly more severe.

The cause is obviously unknown but opinion is split between either a steering column failure or excessive bottoming and an overcorrection. Unfortunately, proponents of both theories are so sure that they are correct that its impossible to have a proper discussion about it. I have been studying and working in the field of vehicle dynamics for 7 years, and I'm still not convinced either way. Though I still think a lot more insight could be acheived with some simple simulations and calculations. One day when I have time, I will solve this one...

[timbo]

The crack in the forward left side of the cockpit also shows that monocoques still had some way to come in terms of strength. I recall a few occasions shortly after '94 where the crash test were made significantly more severe.

The crashes shown how dangerous is to become complacent. There were several crashes (especially Donelli's) which should have been wake up calls, but no action taken. Driver's protection was very poor on those cars. Driver's were lucky between 1986 to 1994.

[Manoah2u]

The crashes shown how dangerous is to become complacent. There were several crashes (especially Donelli's) which should have been wake up calls, but no action taken. Driver's protection was very poor on those cars. Driver's were lucky between 1986 to 1994.

the sport is heading there again, actually.

[GitanesBlondes]

The crack in the forward left side of the cockpit also shows that monocoques still had some way to come in terms of strength. I recall a few occasions shortly after '94 where the crash test were made significantly more severe.

The crashes shown how dangerous is to become complacent. There were several crashes (especially Donelli's) which should have been wake up calls, but no action taken. Driver's protection was very poor on those cars. Driver's were lucky between 1986 to 1994.

'94 owes most of the problems due to the ban on active suspension and traction control. It took awhile before things were sorted out. Had things progressed from 1991 without the computer aids, it would have been unlikely to see 1994 unfold the way it did.

[timbo]

'94 owes most of the problems due to the ban on active suspension and traction control.

Which does nothing as far as passive safety goes.

It took awhile before things were sorted out. Had things progressed from 1991 without the computer aids, it would have been unlikely to see 1994 unfold the way it did.

Yeah, we would likely not see such a number of crashes at once. However, the driver protection was simply inadequate. Any high speed crash on unlucky angle might have been fatal.
And again, it took FIA two years before the root problem (i.e. poor cockpit protection) started to be addressed.

[GitanesBlondes]

This is an open question for you timbo, or anyone else who wishes to answer. I'm genuinely curious just to see what the responses are.

Why do you or anyone think such a focus on safety is needed? Let me just elaborate a bit further on that question to try and give it some depth. I don't dispute the need for barriers and the like on the sides of circuits, nor do I dispute the need to strengthen up the monocoques, as well as the need to ensure cars do not explode into flames upon impact. But do you ever think that this crusade has gone a bit too far?

Motor racing is a dangerous sport no doubt, but if everyone who participates in it is fully aware of the danger they are putting themselves at, why is it any of our concern what they do? I think skydiving is dangerous, but I don't see any need to legislate it out of existence because it's not as if those who partake in such activities are not aware of what can happen should a chute fail to deploy. It's called an informed risk. If we were talking about purposely obfuscating the truth about the danger, so as to minimize the perception that the sport carries an inherent danger, then I fully understand any, and all concern. However that's not what we are dealing with here. Even in Senna's day the drivers were well aware there were plenty of risks involved in their profession, such that any one of them could be killed. They might have had reservations about it at times, but they accepted it.

Part of my reason for asking is because all across the internet I see people extolling Spa Francorchamps as one of the last of the real circuit designs, and lamenting how terrible all new F1 circuits are. Everyone wants more interesting circuit design, yet the need to be safe as possible has ended that possibility.

I'd even go one further that if the risks were more apparent again, it'd spike ratings up. You know how I know that? Because in spite of all of the risks American football poses to the long-term health of the participants, people continue to watch in record numbers. The thought process goes that now they are all aware of what can happen from playing the sport, and it's up to them to decide whether or not they want to participate.

I sort of equate danger in motorsport to sex. Sure it's fun when one has protection. But when there is no protection, the thrill is so much greater.