88 replies to this topic

[eirwal]

When De Jong crashed heavily into the barriers durimg the Spa GP2 race today, everyone was very worried for quite a while as to the consequences he might have suffered. During the F1 LatinAmerica broadcast ex-GP3 driver, Argentine Facu Regalia, who was commenting the race suggested that the very high speed at impact was mainly down to the extensive paved run-off and thta, in his opinion, it would be far better to have smaller paved run-offs and more gravel traps to slow down cars that were completely out of control.

While Regalia may not be a world class driver he does have single seater experience and his opinion may perhaps be on the right track. Any thoughts on the sublect?

[Atreiu]

I guess so.

The gravel didn't stop Burti in 2001 but perhaps slowed him enough to avoid an even more serious crash.

[sabjit]

Its an interesting concept. But the argument against gravel traps was that it wasn't as effective as slowing down cars as tarmac. But if a front wing is underneath the car, then it wont slow down until it either goes through some gravel or hits a barrier.

[MikeV1987]

 

I do not think a gravel trap would have helped that much, it would have probably skipped into the wall anyway. It needs more run off if anything imo.

 

The gravel trap in the first sector at Catalunya didn't slow Heikki Kovalainen's Mclaren too much back in the day.

Edited by MikeV1987, 22 August 2015 - 20:58.

[917k]

No way - the car would have skipped over the few metres of gravel that would fit in there in milliseconds.

[JHSingo]

It was something I was only thinking about yesterday, actually.

 

After Ericsson's crash in FP2, the BBC guys (and I think, in particular, Allan McNish) made some comment along with lines of 'and that's why they have tarmac run off there'. I didn't really understand the logic behind that, as I would have thought that gravel would have slowed the car down much better than tarmac. Same for this incident, too.

But then, there's this argument that gravel makes a car more likely to roll if it is sliding sideways, so...I'm not sure too really.

[Ellios]

'Lucky' he didn't go in there upside down after touching wheels

[thegamer23]

I don't think that gravel would have slowed the car by much. 
Speed is too high and space is too small. 

Edited by thegamer23, 22 August 2015 - 20:55.

[jonpollak]

Irvine is an asshole of the highest order.

[Fastcake]

No way - the car would have skipped over the few metres of gravel that would fit in there in milliseconds.

 

Exactly. If anything the impact would have been even harder.

[Frood]

Irvine is an asshole of the highest order.

 

I would agree in general yes, the move in '01 yes - but to be fair he did try and help Burti out of the wreckage if my memory serves me correctly. He did (albeit very occasionally) think of something else than number one!

[ocp]

Let's look at the source of the problem.

If there was gravel there he would not put his wheels there thus not even trying to pass there or whatever he was thinking.

[MikeV1987]

If there was gravel at the edge of the track they would have crashed sooner, he had every right to be there. It was the driver in front who squeezed him off. Classic GP2 tactics.

Edited by MikeV1987, 22 August 2015 - 21:19.

[thegamer23]

Let's look at the source of the problem.

If there was gravel there he would not put his wheels there thus not even trying to pass there or whatever he was thinking.

You hit the point. Agree 100 %

[ardbeg]

If there was gravel at the edge of the track they would have crashed sooner, he had every right to be there. It was the driver in front who squeezed him off. Classic GP2 tactics.

He had the right to be there, yes. That does not mean it was wise to be there. If I go in to a bar and see it is full of Hells Angels, I have the right to shout "I can take anyone of you ugly motorheads", but it would not be a wise thing to do.

 

Attempting to pass on the outside at Blanchimont can only work if the driver on the inside is willing to cooperate and his decision is not in your hands.

Edited by ardbeg, 22 August 2015 - 21:33.

[johnmhinds]

It could be argued that the only reason this crash happened was because he was trying to use the tarmac run off to make the pass work.

If they has astro turf or a curb around the edge of the track then he wouldn't have ended up in that unsafe position because he would have had to back off from the overtaking move well before the corner.

Really dumb idea to try and overtake around the outside of such a high speed corner anyway.

[byrkus]

Here's my opinion. I guess that if the car had a nose shape as March 751, then the front of the car would dig itself into gravel, and it would rapidyl lose speed. As it is, the modern car would possibly hop across as a flat stone over water, and would hit the barrier with barely any speed lost - no matter if there was gravel underneath, or tarmac

 

That's only my guess, of course.

 

[Nonesuch]

I was thinking about the speeds they do there when watching Hamilton onboard. I strongly doubt this corner would get the OK if Tilke designed it on a new track. The way the hills flow means the run-off at the end of that 300 km/h+ corner (in F1) is very small indeed. That said, earlier accidents don't give much reason to suspect the impact would have been less severe if there had been gravel there.

 

It's rather sad that in the first two seconds of the video it becomes obvious what is going to happen. GP2, indeed.

[Dolph]

Let's look at the source of the problem.

If there was gravel there he would not put his wheels there thus not even trying to pass there or whatever he was thinking.

 

REALLY!? Your argument falls flat on its face. You are saying that he wouldn't try that move if there was gravel there. Because the car would probably go straight into the barrier, right!? As opposed to there being asphalt there in which case the car would... let me see here ... GO STRAIGHT INTO THE BARRIER.
 

[Radoye]

You can't protect against all kinds of accidents. If for this particular accident gravel might have been better (i don't know, but let's assume it could be so) then it could make some other accidents worse for which tarmac would be better. I guess one would have to look at it on a case to case basis for each individual corner and to see statistically what the probability is for each type of accident happening, what could be the consequences if the runoff is one type compared to other, etc and make a decision based on the findings.

 

At least i hope there is some research being put into this.

 

And then, cross fingers and hope that there will be no horror freak accidents which would be the least probable but worse case scenario for what they decided to go with.

[sabjit]

What about aquaplaning cars? Gravel traps are much better at slowing them down.

[Nonesuch]

You are saying that he wouldn't try that move if there was gravel there.

 

By the time the two cars made contact De Jong was already off the track with about half his car.

 

He presumably wouldn't do that if there was grass or gravel there, or if the FIA had a stricter regulation on track limits that recognizes that tracks have changed since 1990.

Edited by Nonesuch, 22 August 2015 - 21:57.

[johnmhinds]

REALLY!? Your argument falls flat on its face. You are saying that he wouldn't try that move if there was gravel there. Because the car would probably go straight into the barrier, right!? As opposed to there being asphalt there in which case the car would... let me see here ... GO STRAIGHT INTO THE BARRIER.

If there was gravel then there wouldn't have been space for him to attempt the pass.

The tarmac run off is the only reason he put himself in that dangerous overtaking position.

[kamikaze1]

I would agree in general yes, the move in '01 yes - but to be fair he did try and help Burti out of the wreckage if my memory serves me correctly. He did (albeit very occasionally) think of something else than number one!

 

You are very much correct, Irvine was in immediate despair over what happened and went and helped the Marshalls remove tyres.  Irvine and Burti had been teammates at Jaguar  up until a couple of races before the Spa race if I recall correctly, and they were close friends.  The comment on Irvine being an asshole is a bit :/ 

Edited by kamikaze1, 22 August 2015 - 22:13.

[scheivlak]

Let's look at the source of the problem.

If there was gravel there he would not put his wheels there thus not even trying to pass there or whatever he was thinking

a) I don't think you've paid much attention to De Jong before - let's say he's among the more optimistic drivers out there

b) What happened was also the result of Gasly closing down on De Jong

c) As already mentioned, a gravel trap did not prevent what happened between Irvine and Burti in 2001.

[anneomoly]

https://acadia.s3.am...egional_020.pdf
 
Figure seven shows the deceleration curve for both gravel and asphalt, but for those that want the tl;dr
 
 

Counter to intuition, stopping distances on gravel surfaces are greater on asphalt, this is due reduced friction as the vehicle slides over the rougher looser surface

 

 

The other argument that I've seen for asphalt over gravel is that in instances where the driver does retain some control it's easier for them to steer away from danger on a solid surface compared to a moving bed of small stones. I wouldn't really imagine that skipping over gravel provides much difference in deceleration compared to aquaplaning over asphalt, either, though I can't find any comparisons for the two.

[ArchieTech]

It needs more run off if anything imo.

 

 

Apart from the minor issue of the valley and the forest behind the corner. Run off is already as good as it's ever going to get I reckon.

[ANF]

Let's look at the source of the problem.

If there was gravel there he would not put his wheels there thus not even trying to pass there or whatever he was thinking.

I'm not sure that's the case. I think the source of the problem is that the younger generations of drivers seem to have a total lack of respect for danger and an unhealthy urge to leave a space of no more than two inches to any car they get close to. (And the commentators, they love it of course. Until something bad happens and the finger-pointing begins.)

[ANF]

If there was gravel then there wouldn't have been space for him to attempt the pass.

The tarmac run off is the only reason he put himself in that dangerous overtaking position.

I'm just going to leave this here.

 

[johnmhinds]

Not sure what your point is ANF, Alonso wasn't trying to use an area outside of the track boundaries to overtake, he tried to overtake within the track limits, before Vettel pushed him wide.

 

But in this crash it looks like De Jong drove off the track on purpose treating the tarmac run off as an extra part of the race track.

 

It's not the same kind of situation at all.

Edited by johnmhinds, 22 August 2015 - 23:44.

[Fastcake]

This is GP2, the surface off track has nothing to do with it. You see drivers making similar impossible moves in Monaco for pete's sake, and that's surrounded by armco. Half of the current young drivers think that by putting their front wing alongside another car they can drive straight through him, and the other half think it's fine to turn in even when they're a nose behind.

 

If you think gravel traps discourage drivers from pulling off reckless moves, you should have seen Canamasas at Monza last year speeding straight through the gravel at Ascari to overtake two cars. No one tries to overtake off-track as any blatant maneuver will get penalised, they just genuinely believe they can pull off the pass on the track. It's madness.

[Seanspeed]

Let's look at the source of the problem.

If there was gravel there he would not put his wheels there thus not even trying to pass there or whatever he was thinking.

He wasn't trying to pass right there. He was simply hanging on to the advantage he'd gained out of Stavelot. You don't just throw that kind of thing away. If Gasly wanted to stick it out, he might have kept on the inside and they would have had some dramatic side by side action through Blanchimont. It doesn't happen often, but it's not impossible so long as both drivers judge their pace and steering properly. It's risky, but neither driver was really in any position to back off 'rightfully'. Being on the inside usually gives a driver the benefit of the doubt, but not with super fast corners. Then being on the inside is a liability and you back off since you'll have to disadvantage yourself quite a bit being off-line. So you could argue Gasly was really the one who should have backed out. But he didn't even do that. Gasly just came over on De Jong like he wasn't there.

I cannot blame De Jong at all for that. It's total victim blaming. Gasly came over on him and caused the collision directly.

[Imateria]

I've seen enough accidents where a car goes straight on and then just skips over the gravel trap at unabated speed, gravel would have had absolutely no effect on de Jong's crash.

[Incast]

Felt like almost a copycat of Burti in 2001 - as the above videos show.

 

The more I think about this, the more I fear there are parallels between Blanchimont and the old Tamburello corner at Imola. Both being extremely high speed but restricted in the run off, Tamburello had a river behind it preventing extension of the run off, Blanchimont has a steep drop.

[ardbeg]

He wasn't trying to pass right there. He was simply hanging on to the advantage he'd gained out of Stavelot. You don't just throw that kind of thing away. If Gasly wanted to stick it out, he might have kept on the inside and they would have had some dramatic side by side action through Blanchimont. It doesn't happen often, but it's not impossible so long as both drivers judge their pace and steering properly. It's risky, but neither driver was really in any position to back off 'rightfully'. Being on the inside usually gives a driver the benefit of the doubt, but not with super fast corners. Then being on the inside is a liability and you back off since you'll have to disadvantage yourself quite a bit being off-line. So you could argue Gasly was really the one who should have backed out. But he didn't even do that. Gasly just came over on De Jong like he wasn't there.

I cannot blame De Jong at all for that. It's total victim blaming. Gasly came over on him and caused the collision directly.

Seriously? De Jong was never even up alongside, his front tires was level with Gasly's rear all the time until just before the impact when Gasly probably lifted a tiny bit due to the less than ideal entry line to Blanchimont. I seriously doubt he could even see that De Jong was still there since his eyes was focusing on the apex ahead. He would have looked very stupid if he had lifted and let De Jong through.

 

If you want to pass on the outside - first make sure you are at least alongside going into the corner.

 

It is too much risk taking. Risk taking that leads to more extreme safety measures. Which leads to more risk taking.

Edited by ardbeg, 23 August 2015 - 03:37.

[CoolBreeze]

It's that de jong guy's fault. He was clearly looking to use the runoff area to make his move stick. As someone posted above, if the gravel was there, he would have lifted, and none of this could have happened. 100% his fault. 

[Nathan]

I don't see what a gravel trap would have done.  The car would have just skipped along.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

One main difference is that in a sand or gravel trap, it is furrowed, crests and dips. It does not slow a car down as well as asphalt .. unless something digs in. But once that happens, the car is completely out of control, and there is no prediction how it will impact. In the case of Greg Moore, his car dug into the grass and hit the concrete at exactly the wrong way.

 

So the first advantage is that asphalt slows the car down more. Second, it does not introduce an out-of-control situation where the driver may impact something directly.

 

Even if asphalt did not slow a car down as well as gravel, it is safer because it usually results in just a slide, instead of launching the car into a wild tumbling motion.

 

[Spillage]

It would have made no difference, I think.

But it wouldn't have been worse. I think Spa is supposed to be tough; you probably wouldn't get away with designing a track like it nowadays. That's what makes it so awesome. Hakkinen's blog about the 2000 race on Mclaren's website is a case in point - pushing it is not supposed to be easy.

[Tapz63]

It's that de jong guy's fault. He was clearly looking to use the runoff area to make his move stick. As someone posted above, if the gravel was there, he would have lifted, and none of this could have happened. 100% his fault.

Is it illegal to put two wheels over the line or something? I think it is clear he did that because he wasn't sure how far the other car would move over on him, and unfortunately even that was not enough. So he was in a position he was entitled to be in and was hit off track. 100% not his fault.

[Requiem84]

Seriously? De Jong was never even up alongside, his front tires was level with Gasly's rear all the time until just before the impact when Gasly probably lifted a tiny bit due to the less than ideal entry line to Blanchimont. I seriously doubt he could even see that De Jong was still there since his eyes was focusing on the apex ahead. He would have looked very stupid if he had lifted and let De Jong through.

If you want to pass on the outside - first make sure you are at least alongside going into the corner.

It is too much risk taking. Risk taking that leads to more extreme safety measures. Which leads to more risk taking.

A lot of wrongs in this post.

1)Gasly had to see De Jong, otherwise he would have been far more to the right on the entry of Blanchimont. He left 'some space'. You don't do that if you think nobody is around.

2) Gasly should not have let DJ pass, he should have taken Blanchimont with a narrower entry, thus compromising his exit speed, while DJ could have taken it flat out due to his outside line, giving him the advantage on the run to the busstop

3)Lynn & King showed you can race two wide through Eau Rouge. We loved that move and applaud them for that. One should be able to rely on others to not make dangerous moves at 300 km/h.

If they can't take risks anymore, it will get rather boring.

[Ruusperi]

Only in wet conditions gravel is superior to the slippery tarmac. But the reason why fans want gravel and grass back is not about safety but restoring the challenge by penalizing from driver errors and preventing corner cutting and going wide without consequences. For example turn 9 and 12 should definitely have gravel instead of tarmac to heighten the challenge.

But Eau Rouge and Blanchimont remain challenging and indeed punishing no matter what surface there is. Maybe there should be some TecPro-barrier installed there, although I suspect TecPro isn't meant for 250km/h impacts but for lower speeds.

[Gorma]

What about aquaplaning cars? Gravel traps are much better at slowing them down.

The speeds are already slower when there is water on the track.

[anneomoly]

Only in wet conditions gravel is superior to the slippery tarmac. But the reason why fans want gravel and grass back is not about safety but restoring the challenge by penalizing from driver errors and preventing corner cutting and going wide without consequences. For example turn 9 and 12 should definitely have gravel instead of tarmac to heighten the challenge.

But Eau Rouge and Blanchimont remain challenging and indeed punishing no matter what surface there is. Maybe there should be some TecPro-barrier installed there, although I suspect TecPro isn't meant for 250km/h impacts but for lower speeds.

 

I thought it was because fans only had the imagination to see the three solutions dumped under their nose, instead of supposing there might be a new solution out there.

[dweller23]

I am one of the biggest fans of gravel traps, but I understand that the fast corners like Blanchimont or Eau Rouge should have tarmac run offs. It's corners like Rivage that should have gravel traps, but for some reason were stripped of them.

[SenorSjon]

The speeds are already slower when there is water on the track.

Yet cars skid without slowing down on tarmac runoffs. They perhaps should fill the tarmac runoffs with 15-20cm of water.

A lot depends on the way the gravel trap is designed to judge how much it will slow down a car.

In De Jong's case, he was only there because he could due to the runoff. You saw Vettel take the inside of corners quite liberal. Kerbs are not what they used to and perhaps that lessens the challenge of eau rouge for example. They can take the corner much straighter than in the past, so the not lifting challenge is barely there.

[ANF]

Not sure what your point is ANF, Alonso wasn't trying to use an area outside of the track boundaries to overtake, he tried to overtake within the track limits, before Vettel pushed him wide.

 

But in this crash it looks like De Jong drove off the track on purpose treating the tarmac run off as an extra part of the race track.

 

It's not the same kind of situation at all.

Well, that's not the way I saw it. I know this may sound stupid, but I'm not even sure that De Jong was expecting Gasly to come over to the right after the first apex. Up until that point, De Jong had stayed well within the track limits, so maybe he was hoping for Gasly's car to defy the laws of physics and stay glued to the left-hand side of the track throughout Blanchimont.

As for Alonso's move. There was no tarmac runoff on the outside, yet he did put himself in a dangerous overtaking position and went for a gap that didn't really exist. Had the driver been an inexperienced guy in a junior category, I may well have called it amateurish.

[dweller23]

One main difference is that in a sand or gravel trap, it is furrowed, crests and dips. It does not slow a car down as well as asphalt .. unless something digs in. But once that happens, the car is completely out of control, and there is no prediction how it will impact. In the case of Greg Moore, his car dug into the grass and hit the concrete at exactly the wrong way.

 

So the first advantage is that asphalt slows the car down more. Second, it does not introduce an out-of-control situation where the driver may impact something directly.

 

Even if asphalt did not slow a car down as well as gravel, it is safer because it usually results in just a slide, instead of launching the car into a wild tumbling motion.

 

While sand traps are rather nasty, and grass is very dangerous on the outside of corners, I believe that gravel traps are fine. I am yet to see a nasty crash because of gravel trap. People always put on those sand trap crash videos (like the infamous Laguna Seca one), but they actually never show nasty stuff caused by gravel traps (obviously I am talking about car racing, not motorcycles).

Edited by dweller23, 23 August 2015 - 10:21.

[Jackmancer]

While sand traps are rather nasty, and grass is very dangerous on the outside of corners, I believe that gravel traps are fine. I am yet to see a nasty crash because of gravel trap. People always put on those sand trap crash videos (like the infamous Laguna Seca one), but they actually never show nasty stuff caused by gravel traps (obviously I am talking about car racing, not motorcycles).

 

Yeah. I also remember Heidfeld saying, on his Indy crash (picture) that it wasn't really an impact, it was mainly rolling. Btw he got toppled by a car, not the gravel.

 

Otherwise, I think the only solution for De Jong's crash, at such a small distance, is a shallow pool of water that would decelerate the car more. But that'd be weird, right?

[Baddoer]

Only thing that can stop the car in this situation is gravel trap sloping upwards, otherwise any car will just fly over it.