You could certainly blame Bianchi for not slowing down sufficiently but not for what he met. I do wonder how bad the accident would have been even without the tractor being there. Did he even have time to react at such speed.
Firstly, I am no expert on this, but I'll speak my mind*. Litigation requires clear, otherwise unprotected culprit(s). Establishing this may be very difficult as well as exorbitantly expensive (although as I understand it, the Bianchis are not short of a few bob). It also tends to be sought only when it is perceived that the outcome of events â which may otherwise be compensated â is unsatisfactory. This may be difficult to establish and, I would suggest, be resolutely resisted by the FIA if or when fingers point in their direction. Also, individuals may be held accountable within an organisation â usually such that the organisation is also found to be at fault in in the hierarchical sense â as well as such accountability varying according to the country where transgression(s) are found to have occurred. It is therefore, far from a simple matter. Of course, it's too early to apportion blame â and surely in this instance would not involve a flag waving marshal almost certainly doing what he was told (although in error, it might) â but instinct tells me a number of factors will come under scrutiny for the Bianchi incident. As with most tragedies, it would appear to have been the unfortunate conclusion of a series of events, themselves the result of circumstance, procedures and the 'on the ground' interpretation of them. And finally, we should remind ourselves that participants in dangerous sports (especially motor racing) are well aware of the dangers and potential consequences of events beyond their control. Let's hope, ASC, that your question is a long way down the road; or better still, around a corner which can be avoided altogether. *This response is entirely my opinion.
Head and Newey were sued in the aftermath of Senna's death. I didn't realise until I looked it up just now that Patrick Head was actually found guilty (because of modifications made to the steering column), though because the statute of limitations had run out, he was not imprisoned. Frankly I think it's bullshit that reeks of trying to find a scapegoat and I hope sincerely that sort of thing never occurs ever again let alone right now.
I've just read the last few posts and would like to respond to suggestions that deploying the SC sooner might not have made much, if any, difference to the outcome. I'll write this in big bold print: My opinion is that the JCB should not have been allowed to attempt a recovery until the Safety Car had succeeded in causing the racing drivers to slow to a safe speed. To put it another way, this requires the JCB to stay off the circuit until such time as it was safe to venture out there, which obviously it did not. As for the suggestion that Bianchi was to blame, it is possible that some input (or mechanical failure) contributed to him leaving the track. However, race tracks should not have huge solid objects in the direct line of any such wayward vehicle, howsoever caused! Expanding upon the 'Bianchi to blame?' possibility, my instinct says no – although he may have become distracted by the Sutil crash-site itself*. My reasoning is based upon speed alone, since I have no idea of whether driver input(s) contributed. Relative to others who passed by without incident, Bianch's speed through Dunlop was not excessive. Indeed, as I said last time I visited this forum, it is interesting to note that Max Chilton went through Dunlop under waved yellows, approximately 20kph quicker than Bianchi, yet without incident. *Sometimes a peculiar effect can occur when a driver becomes focussed on a place he or she would prefer to avoid, such that it can contribute to incorrect driver input. This becomes far more likely in low-grip low-vis conditions, where focussing (pretty much entirely) on one's exit is paramount.
I agree with the bold, however this is not procedure at present, however i can see it becoming one after this and hope it does. Along with some kind of skirt on the tractors so cars can't go under them. Gary Hartstein was correct in that drivers push the yellow flag rules, every one of them does. If a safety car had been deployed within 30 seconds of Sutil crashing, would it have picked Bianchi up? i don't think it would have and drivers would in effect be at yellow flag speed. Of course there might not have been such a press for the exit of the corner knowing there was no overtaking so it might have had an effect, but there is no way of ever knowing for sure. It's if's and buts. Yes, procedure should be changed, but in this incident i don't think we can lay blame at anybody, as pointed out there was lots of different circumstances that all met with bad luck.
This is quite interesting: http://zippy.gfycat.com/LightheartedDescriptiveBullfrog.webm KMag the lap before Sutil's crash.
That was some bloody catch from Kmag btw. But good video, and that will be just under 4 minutes before Jules went off, given cars were in the mid 1:50's at that stage, so 4 minutes more rain in what is saturated (and let's not forget, an acceleration zone) and the loaded tyres were already aquaplaning around Dunlop.
For those that have not seen the video, Bianchi was steaming, the car went completely underneath the tractor and out the other side, lifted the tractor vertically and moved it sideways by circa 1 metre, taking off the airbox and roll bar, virtually the whole top of the car, Bianchi's crash helmet took one hell of an impact. Puncturing the tractor tyres as it went. I totally agree any future use of mechanical lifting gear must be under SC conditions, also the marshal's were lucky not be hit. Should a driver ignore instruction or guidance, there must be a way that Race Control can over-ride and manage the speed of the cars by telemetry, it should not be expensive or difficult to devise a system that reduces the speeds by controlled deceleration to an acceptable level without causing more risk, whilst dealing with issues as in Japan on Sunday.
something like a pit-lane limiter that gets activated/decativated at the marshals post before/after the area of incident? As to car removal, rail mounted cranes on the inside of the track would be the way I would go, they have a long enough reach to extract a vehicle, would be mobile enoungh to get there quickly and safely, and would never be a danger to the cars. I do think F1 needs to restrain any knee-jerk reactions, part of the attraction of racing is the knowing if you get it wrong it could be all over, at least, that was prt of it for me, a test of nerve as well as skill.
Hi Miggs, yes, sommat like that mate, not sure I like watching someone get seriously injured, although the bravery of some is beyond belief and enjoyable it's true, difficult to ensure a safe balance innit. As always, If it can happen it will, just a matter of time. A bit like getting all the letters of all the words in the Oxford Dictionary and jumbling them up and then throwing them up in the air, keep doing this and sometime in the future they will all land sequentially exactly as they are written in the book. Not going to try this myself as I probably don't have the time left to prove it.
A pit lane limiter is the way forward in my opinion. I didn't like Perez's comments today though. He needs to re read the laws of double yellow flags and if drivers can't be depended on then the limiter is the best way forward. "He said that drivers slowed down as little as possible even for double yellow flags." Exactly the problem! I feel both the FIA and the drivers are to blame along with a lot of complacency. Double yellows needs a set speed limit of 50mph or same to the pit lane. You speed, you get a stop go.. Repeat it and you're disqualified.
Any form of limited would have to be phased in at speed, otherwise there would be other dangers of a car suddenly de-accelerating because of yellow flags in a sector. Good planning should be able to sort this to prevent a car accelerating out of the previous corner and thus keep them at a set speed. A countdown on the dashboard can then advise the driver when the limiter will be taken off so they can prepare themselves to get back to racing speed With all the electronics, transponders etc located in a car and at places dotted around the circuit these days, I can't see it being a big deal to bring in something like this. As for Perez's comments, very ill advised. If he is admitting there is a culture to effectively try to gain an advantage through yellow flags over another driver, then there is a serious problem with the attitude of some drivers to safety.
If they can monitor when cars are a second apart at various points around a circuit, it shouldn't be too hard to introduce activation zones at the start of each marshal zone, which activate the pit limiter not DRS. You could have a yellow zone before the incident zone so drivers knew what was coming, and hopefully prevent them from taking out the driver ahead.
Why all this? I think Cosicave said it all...the JCB had no right out there until the race were under the safety car. Those racing cars were not designed to withstand a crash into a JCB truck. It had no right out there. We all know how dangerous a sport F1 is and accidents happen, but a knee-jerk reaction isn't the answer. If there was a canopy on the cars that wouldnt have stopped Bianchi from getting hurt, in face he might have been more extreme because he would have had that material smashing into his face...remember he didn't hit the tyre wall as it was meant to be when you crash there....he hit a solid metal truck - went on one side came out the other - raising the truck off it's wheels. If the truck wasn't there Bianchi most likely would had ran into the tyre wall, got up took off his gloves, steering wheel, got onto a motorcycle and headed back to the team's enclosure. The truck shouldn't have been out there unless the race was under the safety car...simple.
But the point of the safety car is just to bring the cars down to an acceptable speed. (And to keep them all away if there's a certain portion of the track that's not safe). If we can achieve the first one without the need for a safety car, should we not try to do so?
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with how things are at present, there is no need for major changes. The only change i think that needs made is that a safety car should come out if a car can not be recovered without the use of a tractor and the tractor should not attempt recovery of the stricken car until the race has been neutralised.
Yes, I agree, but if the safety car had come out sooner. and if that JCB truck wasn't there....maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't think they need too many changes. If it's going to take too long to remove a crashed car or if the car is in a very difficult position to retrieve then bring out the safety car right away.
The digger made things far worse obviously but Bianchi left the track at a huge speed. From the replays Sutil kind of gently went into the barriers whilst Bianchi would have slammed into the barriers, I don't really understand why he was going at such a speed compared to Sutil who wasn't under double yellows. Perez kind of summed it up today in the press conference by saying all you need to do for double yellows is lose 0.5s in a sector. This is just wrong, that's probably the equivalent of a handful of mph through the corner. I don't want a knee jerk reaction but surely it can't be hard to enforce a rule to make them slow down more. No ones going to complain about it now :s
The other thing about forcing the drivers to slow down (either electronically or through penalties) is it would offset the need for safety cars to be deployed more often, so even Bernie couldn't complain.
