Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Maria de Villota suffers testing crash at Duxford [split]


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1306 replies to this topic

#1251 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,377 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 12 October 2012 - 13:35

That's a great pic.

I always assumed the lift was a horizontal thing she hit with her right eye but that diagonal scar makes me wonder if something flat caught her diagonally across the face.

Either way, That's an awesome scar.



Maybe it's surgical?

Advertisement

#1252 the9th

the9th
  • Member

  • 1,544 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 12 October 2012 - 13:48

That's a great pic.

I always assumed the lift was a horizontal thing she hit with her right eye but that diagonal scar makes me wonder if something flat caught her diagonally across the face.

Either way, That's an awesome scar.

She may have tried to duck her head. At this point there are still a lot of unknowns, regarding the 'accident.'
All the best for Maria.
And yes, cranial mass must refer to skull bone.

#1253 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,795 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:31

In the news again...
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/104715
...out of hospital after another operation.

But thats not the reason for posting this message. I was actually intrigued by the bit at the end of the article where it says
On Monday, de Villota was named 'Driver of the Year' by Car & Driver magazine.

So she got "Driver of the Year"????
Is this a "pity" award or something?

I tried to find out more details about it so as to know the rationale behind giving her such an award, and the obvious place to start is the "Car and Driver" magazine website...
http://www.caranddriver.com/
But there is no mention of such an award that I can find.

Thus the question, is there some other more obscure (perhaps Spanish) "Car and Driver" that I should be searching on?


#1254 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,326 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:01

Was any info given about the cause of the accident?

#1255 onemoresolo

onemoresolo
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:05

But thats not the reason for posting this message. I was actually intrigued by the bit at the end of the article where it says
On Monday, de Villota was named 'Driver of the Year' by Car & Driver magazine.

So she got "Driver of the Year"????
Is this a "pity" award or something?


I thought the exact same thing when I read that.

#1256 drunkenmaster

drunkenmaster
  • Member

  • 325 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:54

Thus the question, is there some other more obscure (perhaps Spanish) "Car and Driver" that I should be searching on?


Bingo! ;)

http://www.caranddriverthef1.com

Article about de Villota:
http://translate.goo...ta-hospitalaria

"Today, Mary has received the award for 'Driver of the Year' Car and Driver, who has collected his sister Isabel, for his racing career, very remarkable women in the field, and his desire to excel that has been overcome by a terrible accident like yours still smiling."

Edited by drunkenmaster, 04 December 2012 - 12:15.


#1257 paulrobs

paulrobs
  • Member

  • 507 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:08

I didn't want to read any of the reports or see any of the photos until I knew she was ok. Really glad she is ok, albeit with maybe some lasting problems and another operation still to go.

#1258 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,578 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 04:00

Oh man - I know I'm a bit late but I've only just seen that image of the damage to her skull. Very very lucky woman to still be alive after that...

#1259 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 3,447 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 29 December 2012 - 04:03

Oh man - I know I'm a bit late but I've only just seen that image of the damage to her skull. Very very lucky woman to still be alive after that...

It's absolutely shocking isn't it. I almost could not believe it.

Advertisement

#1260 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,322 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 29 December 2012 - 11:58

:eek: at the 3D x-ray pic. Unbelievable she survived but also that it happened, struck her directly in the weakest point of the helmet. An inch higher or lower and presumably the helmet would have taken more of the brunt like Massa's accident :( Great to hear she is recovering though, hopefully the adversity spurs her on to new challenges :up:

#1261 Absulute

Absulute
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 30 December 2012 - 23:24

She is indeed incredibly lucky to be alive.

When I first heard of the accident I had that horrible feeling in my stomach but I'm glad to hear she's doing well.

#1262 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,774 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 31 December 2012 - 00:24

For me, that medical computer graphic is the most memorable image of the season. Fortunately it resulted in a (reasonably) happy ending as well.

Edited by midgrid, 31 December 2012 - 00:25.


#1263 MonzaDriver

MonzaDriver
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 31 December 2012 - 14:47

I would like to give her all the wishes in the world,
that her life will be affected as little as possible,
by this accident.

The stupidity of what happened disturb me a lot.

Fortunately people who give her the first aid,
the surgeons that treated her and cured her in that wonderful manner,
are way less stupid than F1 people.

All the best Maria.

#1264 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 10,930 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 27 February 2013 - 20:30

She has now been given the go-ahead to drive by her doctor:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/21606042

Good news. She seems to be making as best a recovery as possible.

#1265 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,632 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 27 February 2013 - 21:01

I think cranial mean skull.

Cranial is the dome at the top of the skull, the term skull refers to everything including the jaw and eye sockets etc

#1266 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,837 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 April 2013 - 14:56

Maria de Villota has been speaking this weekend of her new life

#1267 george1981

george1981
  • Member

  • 770 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 28 April 2013 - 15:18

But I cannot speak about it because it is the subject of an investigation. I believe in justice and I prefer to act cautiously, that the investigators will do their work and establish what happened that day.

This quote would seem to indicate that she thinks there was a problem with the car. Whereas Marussia have said that the results of their investigation found that there was no car problem. I think this will probably end up going to court, if it isn't there already.

#1268 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,837 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 28 April 2013 - 15:58

This quote would seem to indicate that she thinks there was a problem with the car. Whereas Marussia have said that the results of their investigation found that there was no car problem. I think this will probably end up going to court, if it isn't there already.


Could just as well indicate a problem with trackside operations, truck not being were it should be, etc.

#1269 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,377 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 April 2013 - 16:06

Has the operational explanation of what went on in the car been revealed yet?

#1270 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,795 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 28 April 2013 - 21:13

This quote would seem to indicate that she thinks there was a problem with the car. Whereas Marussia have said that the results of their investigation found that there was no car problem. I think this will probably end up going to court, if it isn't there already.




Or it could be that she herself was at fault but either
- she wants to absolve herself of any responsibility and blame somebody, anybody else,
- for legal reasons she needs to never admit guilt (because there might be some insurance payout related reason?).

We're not really going to know until at least one of the investigations are complete.



#1271 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,605 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 28 April 2013 - 22:55

Don't have sources, just going by mt recollection of what I've heard anecdotally on Radio Le Mans. I understand the truck's tail lift was left down and at roughly 50% elevation. To do this is a convenience because it allows team personnel to nip in and out of the truck to fetch tools etc, but it meant the tail lift was at head height for de Villota. In terms of why she crashed, I understand there was a working theory that a dragging clutch could have caused the revs to drop too low while Villotta was maneuvering at slow speed, causing the anti-stall to kick in. If the clutch was working properly, clearly the anti-stall would pull the clutch in and hit the throttle and the car would not accelerate. But if the clutch was dragging, the effect of the anti-stall hitting the throttle could have been to make the car lurch forward unexpectedly.

All that I've said is pure speculation based on things I heard months ago. Anyone have any more up-to-date info?

#1272 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,976 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 28 April 2013 - 22:57

That is the most up-to-date speculation.

#1273 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 28 April 2013 - 23:20

I thought Marussia came out and said everything was fine with the car, therefore suggesting the human was at fault.

#1274 Dalin80

Dalin80
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 29 April 2013 - 06:50

It doesn't matter on what scale the the person, team or company is their insurance documents will always say the same 'NEVER admit liability'. Until there is some form of legal recourse or insurance payout no involved party will go anywhere near a statement that even hints towards being at blame. A very big team like Red Bull for example could maybe get away with paying out and trying to manoeuvre things for PR reasons 'look we paid every penny of medical treatment, were the good guys so please by our drink' but for a small team like marussia it simply couldn't happen as a large compensation claim would be the end of them.

#1275 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 29 April 2013 - 12:06

It doesn't matter on what scale the the person, team or company is their insurance documents will always say the same 'NEVER admit liability'. Until there is some form of legal recourse or insurance payout no involved party will go anywhere near a statement that even hints towards being at blame. A very big team like Red Bull for example could maybe get away with paying out and trying to manoeuvre things for PR reasons 'look we paid every penny of medical treatment, were the good guys so please by our drink' but for a small team like marussia it simply couldn't happen as a large compensation claim would be the end of them.

On the other hand, and there is one, if the car malfunctioned, and she consequently lost her eye,..

#1276 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 380 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 29 April 2013 - 15:44

On the other hand, and there is one, if the car malfunctioned, and she consequently lost her eye,..


Isn't that part of the risk of being a racing driver? You are essentially driving a prototype car where parts arn't put through 1000's of hours of testing like any production vehicle. If this is the case surely any driver injured will be claiming compensation for their accident? Next we will have drivers suing each other for accidents on the track that result in injury.

#1277 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,837 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:11

@7MGTEsup: Of course that's the risk, but accepting the risk does not rule out having insurance (neither for driver nor team). Lionel Messi walks onto the football field twice a week knowing that there is a risk of foul play that can end his career, and nevertheless he found an insurance company willing to insure his legs at an amount of 150 million dollars, or so I read.

#1278 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 908 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 April 2013 - 07:12

It's an interesting situation, but ultimately she hasn't got a chance. Even if the throttle stuck open, or the car when into some sort of safe mode, the steering and brake pedal still worked. If you look at the photographs and listen to the released audio, she had more than enough time (as a racing driver) to steer away from the truck (even a few degrees would have done it) or slap the brakes on. I think the data will show she got caught out by some sort of anti-stall, had the car in gear and panic'd in the couple of seconds she had.

Its very sad, but just an accident - while I do think the car bit her, it is also likely that she didn't know entirely what she was doing, and possibly shouldn't have been in it.

As I said, all very sad.

#1279 Nick Planas

Nick Planas
  • Member

  • 124 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:49

I'm not sure how much the law has changed since I was a Training Manager in the early 2000s, but I recall delivering some Product Liability training in which it was asserted that "any defective item which causes injury can be subject to a claim for liability" and furthermore "any item which causes injury is considered to be defective". OK, so this means that, for example, if you happen to catch your eye on the corner of your car door as you get out, that car door could be subject to a claim against the manufacturer for building a defective car door - unless they have put out a sign saying "Beware - the corner of this car door may cause injury".

So, even if Marussia were to assert that there was nothing wrong with the race car, and that the accident was down to the driver - if there was a "feature" which she cannot reasonably be expected to know about which brought about the accident, in British law that feature / car would be deemed to be defective and therefore the cause of the accident for litigation purposes.

This, by the way, is why we see so many odd warning signs on objects, e.g. in the kitchen "Warning - these contents will be hot when cooked" - because in the past people have successfully claimed against the manufacturer for personal injury. (My personal favourite being on some fizzy drink screw caps - "Open by hand only" - work it out, folks :cool:

The relevance for my (then) industry was that in car rental, in the 'old days' - we would give a customer a set of car keys and if he/she didn't know how to switch the lights on when it got dark... well... that was their problem. They had a licence... but then after a few accident claims the industry twigged that we really should offer to show customers where all the light controls were as there was so much variation between different manufacturers. Not sure whether it's what happens now as I haven't hired a car for a decade.

Advertisement

#1280 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 01 May 2013 - 07:16

As already speculated, I imagine this will be about insurance wrangling, rather than litigation.

#1281 MirNyet

MirNyet
  • Member

  • 908 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:08

I'm not sure how much the law has changed since I was a Training Manager in the early 2000s, but I recall delivering some Product Liability training in which it was asserted that "any defective item which causes injury can be subject to a claim for liability" and furthermore "any item which causes injury is considered to be defective". OK, so this means that, for example, if you happen to catch your eye on the corner of your car door as you get out, that car door could be subject to a claim against the manufacturer for building a defective car door - unless they have put out a sign saying "Beware - the corner of this car door may cause injury".

So, even if Marussia were to assert that there was nothing wrong with the race car, and that the accident was down to the driver - if there was a "feature" which she cannot reasonably be expected to know about which brought about the accident, in British law that feature / car would be deemed to be defective and therefore the cause of the accident for litigation purposes.

This, by the way, is why we see so many odd warning signs on objects, e.g. in the kitchen "Warning - these contents will be hot when cooked" - because in the past people have successfully claimed against the manufacturer for personal injury. (My personal favourite being on some fizzy drink screw caps - "Open by hand only" - work it out, folks :cool:

The relevance for my (then) industry was that in car rental, in the 'old days' - we would give a customer a set of car keys and if he/she didn't know how to switch the lights on when it got dark... well... that was their problem. They had a licence... but then after a few accident claims the industry twigged that we really should offer to show customers where all the light controls were as there was so much variation between different manufacturers. Not sure whether it's what happens now as I haven't hired a car for a decade.


Interesting - I would imagine however that she had to sign some forms to cover the race team for this sort of thing as what she was driving is basically a prototype - not a production item open to the public. Her super licence would state that she was competent to operate such a car? Also, if it was driver error - then just like if I push a power drill through my leg - they can state that the car was fine, she failed to operate it correctly within the bounds of safety as she didn't apply any brake pressure or attempt to steer away from the crash?



#1282 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,605 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 01 May 2013 - 10:45

I'm not sure how much the law has changed since I was a Training Manager in the early 2000s, but I recall delivering some Product Liability training in which it was asserted that "any defective item which causes injury can be subject to a claim for liability" and furthermore "any item which causes injury is considered to be defective". OK, so this means that, for example, if you happen to catch your eye on the corner of your car door as you get out, that car door could be subject to a claim against the manufacturer for building a defective car door - unless they have put out a sign saying "Beware - the corner of this car door may cause injury".

So, even if Marussia were to assert that there was nothing wrong with the race car, and that the accident was down to the driver - if there was a "feature" which she cannot reasonably be expected to know about which brought about the accident, in British law that feature / car would be deemed to be defective and therefore the cause of the accident for litigation purposes.

This, by the way, is why we see so many odd warning signs on objects, e.g. in the kitchen "Warning - these contents will be hot when cooked" - because in the past people have successfully claimed against the manufacturer for personal injury. (My personal favourite being on some fizzy drink screw caps - "Open by hand only" - work it out, folks :cool:

The relevance for my (then) industry was that in car rental, in the 'old days' - we would give a customer a set of car keys and if he/she didn't know how to switch the lights on when it got dark... well... that was their problem. They had a licence... but then after a few accident claims the industry twigged that we really should offer to show customers where all the light controls were as there was so much variation between different manufacturers. Not sure whether it's what happens now as I haven't hired a car for a decade.


If you catch your eye on the corner of a car door, it doesn't necessarily follow that the car door caused the injury, any more than the concrete wall on the outside of Tamburello caused Senna's fatal injuries. Yes, it was a factor, but the wall didn't hit Senna's car, it was the other way around. Similarly, a car door isn't going to leap up and hit you in the face. It therefore doesn't follow that the car door or the wall in these cases must necessarily be considered defective. These are points that would have to be proven in court. To a certain extent, at least, you have to be careful of things like car doors and concrete walls etc, don't you?

Having said that, if an anti-stall system caused a car significantly to accelerate in an uncommanded fashion, it wouldn't be hard to show that it was defective (since it is not designed to do that) or, presumably, to show that the uncommanded acceleration played an active role in causing the accident. I guess the only argument would be whether or not, in the all the circumstances, a professional driver should reasonably have been expected to have been able to overcome the defect by applying the brakes and/or steering away from danger.

As for rental car companies showing customers how to work the controls, there are companies now (e.g. Streetcar in London) where they literally don't have any customer-facing staff at all and the pick-up/set down process is done by smart-card and is fully automated, so they must be satisfied that they're not going to be held responsible for customers not knowing how to turn the lights on.

#1283 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 01 May 2013 - 13:13

Interesting - I would imagine however that she had to sign some forms to cover the race team for this sort of thing as what she was driving is basically a prototype - not a production item open to the public. Her super licence would state that she was competent to operate such a car? Also, if it was driver error - then just like if I push a power drill through my leg - they can state that the car was fine, she failed to operate it correctly within the bounds of safety as she didn't apply any brake pressure or attempt to steer away from the crash?


No idea if she has one or not, but a superlicence is not required for testing.


#1284 oldracer1957

oldracer1957
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 12 May 2013 - 06:10

http://motorsportsta...k-at-barcelona/

Good to see Maria de Villota back at a race track in her home country.

However, this brings the next question to my mind...

Have there been any findings, investigations or explanations as to how and why that horrible crash occured? I find it quite disturbing that we still haven`t got any explanation.



#1285 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 1,620 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:16

http://motorsportsta...k-at-barcelona/

Good to see Maria de Villota back at a race track in her home country.

However, this brings the next question to my mind...

Have there been any findings, investigations or explanations as to how and why that horrible crash occured? I find it quite disturbing that we still haven`t got any explanation.

Indeed so good she is ok and looking healthy, all the best to her, and of course I hope she enjoys the race today.

#1286 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,715 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:24

Has anyone ever successfully sued an F1 team over deaths or injuries?

The only case in all of motorsport I've ever heard was the estate of Greg Moore suing Fontana over his death in a Champ Car race there, but don't know what came of it.

#1287 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,371 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:29

Mark Donohue's widow suing Penske and Goodyear over his death. But as that was in the States it probably doesn't count.

#1288 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 May 2013 - 11:25

http://motorsportsta...k-at-barcelona/

Good to see Maria de Villota back at a race track in her home country.

However, this brings the next question to my mind...

Have there been any findings, investigations or explanations as to how and why that horrible crash occured? I find it quite disturbing that we still haven`t got any explanation.


Why do you find it disturbing? Your not involved or injured by it so not owed an explanation.


#1289 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,715 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:48

Mark Donohue's widow suing Penske and Goodyear over his death. But as that was in the States it probably doesn't count.


Yeah, I should have said "excluding the litigation capital of the world".

#1290 Murdoch

Murdoch
  • Member

  • 322 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:12

Why do you find it disturbing? Your not involved or injured by it so not owed an explanation.


+1

'I suspect' she simply cocked up and the team are avoiding publicly embarrassing her, she's suffered enough already.


#1291 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 04 June 2013 - 09:04

https://twitter.com/...809144870887426
El casco del accidente de M de Villota RT @amait de Villota's destroyed helmet from the crash in which lost her eye. pic.twitter.com/vgbpDKhdvz

Posted Image

#1292 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,442 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 June 2013 - 09:29

https://twitter.com/...809144870887426
El casco del accidente de M de Villota RT @amait de Villota's destroyed helmet from the crash in which lost her eye. pic.twitter.com/vgbpDKhdvz

Posted Image


Interesting to see a helmet after a real accident rather than tests. I wonder if the penetration of the accident was from opening right through to neck roll, or whether emergency services had to extend the slice to remove the lid safely? Either way, she looks to be in good shape which is nice to see.

#1293 oldracer1957

oldracer1957
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 20 June 2013 - 19:43

https://twitter.com/...809144870887426
El casco del accidente de M de Villota RT @amait de Villota's destroyed helmet from the crash in which lost her eye. pic.twitter.com/vgbpDKhdvz

Posted Image


WOW!! :eek:

#1294 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,976 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 June 2013 - 22:32

It makes you realise how lucky she was to lose "just" an eye.

#1295 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,636 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 21 June 2013 - 02:20

Sweet jesus that looks nasty, never realised it was that bad. Wow.

#1296 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,184 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 15:37

Wow :eek: There was some serious force in that accident, it was a miracle she didn't hit the lorry head-on.

#1297 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 21 June 2013 - 18:18

I can't get my head round the forces required to do that to a helmet. It's not a good advert for Bell is it? But then I guess the critical point of force was through the visor. Proper weak spot at in the shaping behind there...

#1298 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 18:45

I can't get my head round the forces required to do that to a helmet. It's not a good advert for Bell is it? But then I guess the critical point of force was through the visor. Proper weak spot at in the shaping behind there...


I'd say the opposite. She survived the accident which otherwise would have been not only instantly fatal but I don't even want to describe what would have happened to her head.

#1299 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,375 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 June 2013 - 18:56

I can't get my head round the forces required to do that to a helmet. It's not a good advert for Bell is it? But then I guess the critical point of force was through the visor. Proper weak spot at in the shaping behind there...


She drove straight into a parked truck in a 700kg car...

Advertisement

#1300 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 21 June 2013 - 19:00

I'd say the opposite. She survived the accident which otherwise would have been not only instantly fatal but I don't even want to describe what would have happened to her head.


Fair point. I guess it did it's job in that respect. I just didn't expect to see it quite so torn apart.