Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lauda's comments on red flag and repair


  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#151 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 10 July 2014 - 19:42

I have no problem with them repairing the barrier, it was clearly too damaged to allow the race to go ahead.

 

I'd just like to ask why there is exposed armco there in the first place, why are there no tyres protecting the section of barrier that goes around the exposed section under the bridge?

 

Behind every gravel trap at Silverstone there is a 3-4 layer tyre barrier, yet this section of barrier that is much closer to the track is exposed for some reason.



Advertisement

#152 goingthedistance

goingthedistance
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 10 July 2014 - 19:45

Well its certainly big of you to be willing to take that risk but perhaps the participants who might actually die are entitled to have the right safety measures in place rather than have them compromised because some viewers turned over to WImbledon during the delay? Personally, as someone who was there, I always find these sorts of things make a GP more epic, same when there's delays beacuse of a bit of a monsoon...althought I'm biased toward the latter due to the delay at Korea 2010 (?) meaning I didn't miss the race despite  my alcoholic induced oversleeping!

 

Are you British by any chance? Seems to be a very British thing, this belief that waiting for things makes them more epic.  :lol:



#153 Joe Tanto

Joe Tanto
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 10 July 2014 - 19:49

I think replacing the Armco was right thing to do.

I agree another accident at the same point was probably unlikely but having watched so many cars almost leaving the track on entering Wellington Straight on the Saturday from my general admission viewpoint alongside, I guess they may have rejoined the track on the same trajectory as Kimi if one of them did so and may have ended up where he crashed.

This year's cars seemed to be catching a lot of drivers out on approach to Wellington which wouldn't have troubled them in previous years, so following the restart it wouldn't have surprised me. Likewise through Club onto International Pit Straight, never seen so many cars that far out of shape.

It seems unlikely but who would have thought Ralf would crash at Indy at same place in 2004 & 2005, or even Felipe losing it at Stowe last year and this year to almost hit the same piece of wall.

It was worth taking the hour to fix.   



#154 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 10 July 2014 - 20:08

I think replacing the Armco was right thing to do.

I agree another accident at the same point was probably unlikely but having watched so many cars almost leaving the track on entering Wellington Straight on the Saturday from my general admission viewpoint alongside, I guess they may have rejoined the track on the same trajectory as Kimi if one of them did so and may have ended up where he crashed.

This year's cars seemed to be catching a lot of drivers out on approach to Wellington which wouldn't have troubled them in previous years, so following the restart it wouldn't have surprised me. Likewise through Club onto International Pit Straight, never seen so many cars that far out of shape.

It seems unlikely but who would have thought Ralf would crash at Indy at same place in 2004 & 2005, or even Felipe losing it at Stowe last year and this year to almost hit the same piece of wall.

It was worth taking the hour to fix.   

 

I agree with all you say, except I think you're a bit off with your comparators there. RSC's accidents at Indy weren't driver errors they were tyre failures, and it's unsurprising that if a tyre's going to fail it will tend to do so when it is most loaded, which is why there were a number of accidents at that spot, particularly in 2005 with consequences we know about. Kimi's accident was driver error, and if a driver's going to mess it up it could happen anywhere, and that particular spot is a highly unusual place for a driver to end up if he makes a mistake. Whilst I accept that another driver could have made a mistake and been spat off at turn 5, the chances of anybody attempting to rejoin at the sort of speed Kimi was going when he rejoined, after they had seen what happened to him, were zero. That doesn't mean a car couldn't have hit the damaged section of armco for another reason, but an exact replica of Kimi's accident was never, ever going to happen that afternoon. Not even Maldonado is that dumb.

 

At the end of the day, though, it's easy for people who aren't responsible to say to people who are responsible but are insured, that they should behave in a way that could very well invalidate their insurance and/or make them liable for any injury or loss and/or leave them open to charges of negligence, just because people may turn over and watch the tennis. If F1 was that concerned about people watching the tennis, the Grand Prix should have started an hour earlier, as it was always going to overlap with the tennis even had it run to time. If they can't make a minor scheduling change to avoid a clash with the tennis, why should the FIA and the circuit put themselves at risk because of it? My own view is I wish there was a Grand Slam tennis match clashing with every Grand Prix, because that way we'd have a better chance of shaking off some of the casual viewers and maybe then we wouldn't need some of the ridiculous rule changes that have been brought in to appeal to those who aren't paying attention.



#155 Mohican

Mohican
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 11 July 2014 - 06:37

Discussing the cause of Raikkonen's accident appears to me completely irrelevant. Accidents by their very nature are unpredictable, and it leads nowhere to question whether it could have happened again.

Forget Lauda's comments; they are equally irrelevant, although do not reflect that well on him given what he has seen and lived through himself.

Focus instead on a) circuit layout with unprotected Armco, at a sharp angle, b) the fact that it took an hour to fix. In my view, a) is unacceptable, and b) is OK (even though it would have been done in half the time in Singapore or Korea). I see no reason, except history and established practice (always powerful factors in Britain), for the track to be so narrow under that bridge.

Unprotected Armco is bad enough, damaged or incorrectly installed Armco is much worse. Just consider Kubica's rally accident for a second; has not been mentioned here.

#156 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:11

How come "unprotected" Armco has suddenly become an issue in the thread? Armco is always "unprotected" on straights.

 

Just consider Kubica's rally accident for a second; has not been mentioned here.

 

It has.

 

 

I think rallying is madly insane. Which is one of the reasons why I don’t follow it. I wouldn’t want to see it banned though. And even though rallying is also a strawman, you do bring up a good point: let’s ask Kubica’s opinion on unsafe armco.



#157 Mohican

Mohican
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:24

OK, fine, had not noted that.

All the same, the Armco under discussion is not parallel to the straight track - it runs at an acute angle due to the bridge. This is why Kimi hit it more or less head on.

#158 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:55

The bit I saw on the news is the rail needed repair or 'hiding'. A batch of tyres would have done that.

Plus quite possibly a yellow flag for the race on that section of track. And instruct these 'heros' that yellow means no passing, in fact a lessening of outright pace. 

Any club racer knows that though the upper echolons seem to have forgotten, or find it a way to catch up on the car in front!



#159 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:02

I have no problem with them repairing the barrier, it was clearly too damaged to allow the race to go ahead.

 

I'd just like to ask why there is exposed armco there in the first place, why are there no tyres protecting the section of barrier that goes around the exposed section under the bridge?

 

Behind every gravel trap at Silverstone there is a 3-4 layer tyre barrier, yet this section of barrier that is much closer to the track is exposed for some reason.

Tyre walls under normal circumstances are sometimes worse than a smooth barrier, you bounce off a concrete or armco wall whereas the tyres grab and tear the car to bits. Tyres are needed in places where a head on is a possibility,, eg Mark Webber in Spain?  Normally tyres are not needed on straights. Kimi was out of control, self inflicted. 

Though to keep the show going some tyre bundles would have fixed that section for the race.



Advertisement

#160 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:09

Tyre walls under normal circumstances are sometimes worse than a smooth barrier, you bounce off a concrete or armco wall whereas the tyres grab and tear the car to bits. Tyres are needed in places where a head on is a possibility,, eg Mark Webber in Spain?  Normally tyres are not needed on straights. Kimi was out of control, self inflicted. 

Though to keep the show going some tyre bundles would have fixed that section for the race.

 

Agree on the first part, but I don't think it follows that they should then have used tyres temporarily. Tyres need something solid behind them to work safely.

 

Perhaps a couple of rows of tecpro would have been a better temporary solution, but I suppose they don't keep too much of that spare and hanging around. However I don't think tecpro works on grass. I think it has to be on something firmer. I've only even seen it resting on tarmac/concrete.



#161 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:09

Focus instead on a) circuit layout with unprotected Armco, at a sharp angle, b) the fact that it took an hour to fix. In my view, a) is unacceptable, and b) is OK (even though it would have been done in half the time in Singapore or Korea). I see no reason, except history and established practice (always powerful factors in Britain), for the track to be so narrow under that bridge.

Unprotected Armco is bad enough, damaged or incorrectly installed Armco is much worse. Just consider Kubica's rally accident for a second; has not been mentioned here.


Not sure about the sharp angle bit - it looks like the Armco is about 17 deg to the track at that point - not unusual to have that sort of scenario at almost any circuit anywhere in the world. It is not 'protected' as some on here think essential, but putting tyre walls/Recticel etc in front of Armco at that angle causes more problems than having plain Armco. Kimi's car hit the Armco at a sharp angle because the car had turned sharp right, which is not the typical accident at that sort of location.
If you are going to lay the blame anywhere then aim it at those such as the drivers who decreed vast run-off areas on the exit of corners so that they can use 'creative' racing lines rather that staying on the black bit.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 11 July 2014 - 08:23.


#162 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:21

I think it would have taken longer to install a tyre barrier or Rectical barrier than the 20 min or so it took them to remove/replace the Armco. Much of the 1 hour delay was incidental to the actual repair.
It would have taken much longer to fetch any sort of barrier, given that it would have been much more bulky than 4 strips of Armco. It would have to have been already loaded on a lorry, which would have to have been stored at some location so as not to obscure the view of spectators, so it would have taken quite a long time to get to the location. In addition, if a pre-assembled tyre wall was involved, it would have required quite a substantial lifting device, which would also have to be moved into location and then moved clear again afterwards.

Even if they had decided not to do anything to the barrier they would still have had to spend quite a long time sweeping up all the debris from the accident so the delay would probably have been 40-45 mins anyway.

#163 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:34

How come "unprotected" Armco has suddenly become an issue in the thread? Armco is always "unprotected" on straights.


Because the armco does not run parallel to the track, so if a car spears off the track and hits it, it will tend to hit harder than it would if the barrier did run parallel. I think every realistic person will realise why the barrier needs to come in at that point, but maybe it's an area where consideration might bee given to techpr instead.

#164 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:44

Aren't Techpro barriers designed to be placed with a gap between them and the main barrier to help with the absorption of energy - which would be a problem in the circumstances where the main barrier is converging with the track edge. I assume it is also reasonably heavy as it seems to rely on movement of its mass to absorb the energy of the impact. It still needs to be transported, offloaded and installed so I doubt it is an 'instant fix' that some on here seem to determine as being essential to their whole existence - after all it is only a bloody motor race!

#165 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 3,151 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:47

I have no problem with them repairing the barrier, it was clearly too damaged to allow the race to go ahead.

 

I'd just like to ask why there is exposed armco there in the first place, why are there no tyres protecting the section of barrier that goes around the exposed section under the bridge?

 

Behind every gravel trap at Silverstone there is a 3-4 layer tyre barrier, yet this section of barrier that is much closer to the track is exposed for some reason.

I noticed a lot of that at Silverstone, I was only commenting in qualifying that I saw areas where drivers could be seriously hurting by armco barriers. I also believe that Lauda was right though, the chances of someone hitting that same spot again and it hurting them were less than the chance of a TV helicopter landing on top of a car down the hanger straight and no-one called the helicopters in.



#166 Brackets

Brackets
  • Member

  • 5,355 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:20

Aren't Techpro barriers designed to be placed with a gap between them and the main barrier to help with the absorption of energy - which would be a problem in the circumstances where the main barrier is converging with the track edge. I assume it is also reasonably heavy as it seems to rely on movement of its mass to absorb the energy of the impact. It still needs to be transported, offloaded and installed so I doubt it is an 'instant fix' that some on here seem to determine as being essential to their whole existence - after all it is only a bloody motor race!

Never mind the fact you can’t just place techpro – nor tire barriers for that matter – on grass. Because then there will be holes (especially when it’s pouring down which it always does in GB unless when I need it to make my point – i.e., the race was actually dry), and cars will dig under them. Heck, cars even dig under properly installed barriers every once in a while (MS in Silverstone, Burti in Spa,…), so what chance would a make-do barrier stand? None at all, of course.

That leaves you with the option of burying them in the ground, but that also doesn’t work because then they’d tilt backwards on impact and launch the car (and that’s neglecting having diggers ready so it couldn’t be done even if it did work). There still needs to be a solid barrier behind them, and it was this solid barrier which had been totalled to begin with.

The YT-clips from Andrew Hope - He Who We’d All Want To Be - show catastrophic failures of the catch fences, BTW. “Catastrophic failures” as in being totally absent! The one on the S/F straight is most shocking. The one with the Leon could be up for debate if that’s really a place where spectators are supposed to stand (there is no excuse for the exposed track-workers). The Armco in those clips however did what it was supposed to do: absorb energy through deformation.

#167 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 July 2014 - 15:59

I was thinking more of a possible permanent installation of Techpro at that location at some point in the future. I'm not suggesting they could have just lobbed a piece of the stuff in front of the damaged armco instead of repairing it properly.



#168 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 July 2014 - 17:09

Pic of the armco that is on Google Maps

 

Screen%20Shot%202014-07-11%20at%2018.03.

 

Source: https://maps.google....f0f8&dg=feature

 

We can see there had already been at least 3 crashes involving this barrier before Kimi's, and it seems to be the only section of barrier that has been hit and had sections replaced on the whole of the Wellington Straight.

 

Something extra needs to be done to protect the drivers hitting that section of armco if it is being hit more often.



#169 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 11 July 2014 - 17:22

I've stayed away from this topic because I am ad admirer of Lauda, I followed his career from, say, 1976, onwards. And I think he is dead wrong including this particular incident at Silverstone in his little jihad against 'too many rules'.

 

It took me a couple of days, and I've come to the conclusion WHY Lauda is wrong - about the incident at Silverstone and the perceived 'nannyness' of the rule (to give it a name). And that is that drivers of this era, spoilt as they are with a twenty year span of no driver-fatalities, do not show the responsability to drive without 'nanny'-rules.

 

The idiotic block of Trulli in Canada that drove Kubica onto the grass in my honest opinion and almost killed him at Canada 2007, the murderattempt of Schumacher against Barrichello at Hungary 2010, (after his return, which showed something!), the fact that Raikkonen at Silverstone 2014 just happily flies of the track, and goes full throttle back on the track when there are his friends and co-drivers in close proximity... those are just a few examples of the total lack of self-control and adult driving behaviour that Lauda would never have shown in his days.

 

Yes, Lauda would sometimes chop someone, pull a dirty trick here and there, but if he has ever done something like Raikkonen in his whole career, as stupid, selfish, braindead and totally idiotic, I will eat a... spamsandwich.


Edited by Nemo1965, 11 July 2014 - 17:22.


#170 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 July 2014 - 17:39

 

Yes, Lauda would sometimes chop someone, pull a dirty trick here and there, but if he has ever done something like Raikkonen in his whole career, as stupid, selfish, braindead and totally idiotic, I will eat a... spamsandwich.

 

You've no way to know how Lauda or anyone else from that era would have driven if they'd had the same levels car safety and tarmac run offs that they have these days.

 

And I don't think the levels of recklessness have changed either, you're cherry picking 3 extreme incidents from the past 7 years and saying that means drivers overall are more reckless than they were in the 70s? Kind of a silly argument to be making IMO.



#171 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 8,400 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 11 July 2014 - 17:43

It took me a couple of days, and I've come to the conclusion WHY Lauda is wrong - about the incident at Silverstone and the perceived 'nannyness' of the rule (to give it a name). And that is that drivers of this era, spoilt as they are with a twenty year span of no driver-fatalities, do not show the responsability to drive without 'nanny'-rules.

 

... at Grand Prix events. 



#172 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 July 2014 - 17:47

We can see there had already been at least 3 crashes involving this barrier before Kimi's, and it seems to be the only section of barrier that has been hit and had sections replaced on the whole of the Wellington Straight.
 
Something extra needs to be done to protect the drivers hitting that section of armco if it is being hit more often.

Or maybe a single car spinning along the Armco resulting in minor damage to 3 sections.
Given the amount of usage on the circuit during a season and the no of years that section of track has been in use, a few replaced Armco lengths is not unusual.

#173 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 11 July 2014 - 17:56

Or maybe a single car spinning along the Armco resulting in minor damage to 3 sections.
Given the amount of usage on the circuit during a season and the no of years that section of track has been in use, a few replaced Armco lengths is not unusual.

 

Yup it could be a spinning car of course.

 

I was just saying that if only that that short section of barrier is being hit and nowhere else on that straight is then it's probably something they want to look into making safer than the plain armco barrier.

 

TBH I think they just need to build a better bridge at some point so they can push the whole barrier back.


Edited by johnmhinds, 11 July 2014 - 17:57.