Armco outdated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KinLM
  • 19 comments
  • 7,905 views
Messages
2,027
United States
Azle, Texas, USA
Messages
GTP_KinLM
Messages
KinLM
If any of you have been watching Le Mans, you surely would have heard about how Armco has caused lengthy full course cautions due to repairs, and how it may have even contributed to the loss of a life compared to if some other type of barrier had been in place.

Talk is starting to come about that Armco is no longer sufficient for a race such as Le Mans where cars reach such high speeds and danger, as we've seen in this race, is very real.

What are your opinions? Do you think Armco is still fit for the job or is it time for a new innovation?
 
Armco is outdated but somewhat necessary as of now (as a robust and easy to install fencing system) for a track like Le Mans so long as it is used in less dangerous spots (and Simonsen's crash was at an unexpected part of the track for someone to crash, which is why there weren't any tires there like the section right before that one. As I said in the main thread, expect there to be tires all over Tetre Rouge and probably all over Mulsanne next year), but the fact that they slowed the race to a halt to completely cut out and replace a section after every accident was more of the problem this year (since it defeats the purpose of using it in the first place). I don't recall them ever doing that before, and the only thing it has accomplished is make the new pace car rules look more ridiculous than they already seemed and turn the entire race into a farce.
 
Last edited:
The only other option is concrete, which A: doesn't deform, so would cause much worse injuries and B: cost so much more. As Tornado said, more tyres will appear, but I still see Armco as a good barrier to use for somewhere like Le Mans.
 
Seems like another kneejerk reaction to me just as there was with open cockpits after two deaths. Yes his death was tragic but he crashed in an uncommon area and was seemingly unlucky to strike a section with a tree behind it.

TecPro barriers are the tyre replacement/extra addition being used at many circuits but I should imagine they're a lot more expensive and even still I doubt they would have been in the position he crashed yesterday.

jm1326my361.jpg


As Tornado says adding either tyres or TecPro barriers in these less common crash spots is the best and most likely result.
 
Talk is starting to come about that Armco is no longer sufficient for a race such as Le Mans where cars reach such high speeds and danger, as we've seen in this race, is very real.
I suggest you read this thead on closed cockpits in open-wheel racing. Every time there is a tragedy, people rush in without considering the circumstances. Most of these accidents were the end result of a highly-specific set of circumstances that would have been almost impossible to predict, much less reasonably expect to happen. The death of Henry Surtees in particular stands out as a prime example of this.

Simonsen's death was a tragedy. But it does not mean that we need to go making snap judgements about the value of the armco barriers; the only thing a tragedy proves is that it was a tragedy. It would be better to wait for the findings of the investigation into the accident and get all of the context to the accident first.
 
The armco is fine, it was just bad luck with Simonsen. When he crashed into Armco barrier, he went back into a tree instead of breaking in the armco like in some of the other accidents. Allan hit a tree at around 100 MPH instead of the barrier only. In a replay I saw, the tree had some of its bark scrapped of directly where the car hit.

Now if the Armco barriers would stop opening every time a car hit the barrier, then it would be better. RIP Simonsen.
 
"The Armco is fine-- it was just bad luck!"

EVERY crash is bad luck! That's the point of having safety technology. The armco alone failed to do its job to protect drivers from going off and hitting those trees. It is a FAILURE of the circuit and should be remedied somehow before the next race. Even the Rebellion driver broke his ribs after his incident with the armco. For a race with cars going that fast, they need to invest in safer barriers at least around the sections with those high-speed sections.
 
"The Armco is fine-- it was just bad luck!"

EVERY crash is bad luck! That's the point of having safety technology. The armco alone failed to do its job to protect drivers from going off and hitting those trees. It is a FAILURE of the circuit and should be remedied somehow before the next race. Even the Rebellion driver broke his ribs after his incident with the armco. For a race with cars going that fast, they need to invest in safer barriers at least around the sections with those high-speed sections.

The entirety of Le Mans is a high speed section.
 
"The Armco is fine-- it was just bad luck!"

EVERY crash is bad luck! That's the point of having safety technology. The armco alone failed to do its job to protect drivers from going off and hitting those trees. It is a FAILURE of the circuit and should be remedied somehow before the next race. Even the Rebellion driver broke his ribs after his incident with the armco. For a race with cars going that fast, they need to invest in safer barriers at least around the sections with those high-speed sections.

I have no idea how safer barrier will work on the Mulsanne Straight or other parts where the public can drive on but I guess anything is better than nothing. Like Tornado said, "The entirety of Le Mans is a high speed section". You are going to have to rethink every area of the circuit for safety. IMO, I don't think they will remove all the Armco barriers and will most likely leave it on the Mulsanne Straight but instead add more tire barriers to the circuit.

The Armco lasted somehow. 1986 was the last death at the Le Mans 24 hours. Pretty much the only reason why I said it was fine.
 
The Armco barrier is fine, perhaps what they can do is to add something like the TecPro barrier on places where accidents are prone to happen...
 
If any of you have been watching Le Mans, you surely would have heard about how Armco has caused lengthy full course cautions due to repairs, and how it may have even contributed to the loss of a life compared to if some other type of barrier had been in place.

Talk is starting to come about that Armco is no longer sufficient for a race such as Le Mans where cars reach such high speeds and danger, as we've seen in this race, is very real.

What are your opinions? Do you think Armco is still fit for the job or is it time for a new innovation?

Le Mans has always been an extremely dangerous race, and Im surprised there hasnt been worse accidents there over the years. The combination of high speeds, temporary barriers with no catch fencing, multi class racing with big speed differences between cars, and the dozens of 'amateur' racers make it very risky business.

Simonsen's accident severity had alot to do with impact angle. Exiting that turn you're facing almost head on with the barriers until the road curves more.

entreehunau.jpg


He lost control and hit the barriers at a really extreme angle. There was a tree behind the armco which removed any give the armco barrier might have provided. To prevent future accidents they have several options. They could slow down the terte rouge turn (which was sped up even further recently, notice the difference in the turn from GT5 when going from the 2005 to 2009 version of the track) by making it a slower 90 degree turn like in the past. They need to move the barriers away from the trees.

Then they need to create a new barrier that lines up with the angle of the road so if a car loses control theres no chance it can impact at a near head on angle.

Im really surprised the Porsche curves have no safer barriers installed on the permanent concrete walls. Alot of drivers have been hurt there throughout the years so it makes no sense to me. Also safer barriers rarely need repairing so you wouldnt have to stop the race every time someone impacts them.
 
The entirety of Le Mans is a high speed section.

I know, but at least there are gravel traps and tire walls in most of the areas where you'd have an off. The injuries and fatalities are happening where there is no compounding of safety measures.

The Armco barrier is fine, perhaps what they can do is to add something like the TecPro barrier on places where accidents are prone to happen...

This would be a good first step. It'd maybe only cost an extra million or two to outfit parts of the track where the risk of serious injury or death is greatest were there to be an accident. Simonsen died not because the armco failed, but because the race organizers didn't account for the armco failing. You wouldn't expect an accident there, but there was one and it was bad. Better to be safe than sorry.
 
This would be a good first step. It'd maybe only cost an extra million or two to outfit parts of the track where the risk of serious injury or death is greatest were there to be an accident. Simonsen died not because the armco failed, but because the race organizers didn't account for the armco failing. You wouldn't expect an accident there, but there was one and it was bad. Better to be safe than sorry.

Couldn't agree more. The barrier where Simonsen crashed was probably the last place for me to think of an accident to happen. What are those extra million in comparison to a lost life? I hope they learned something from this weekend and improvise the safety for next year. I certainly don't want to see anymore fatality and perhaps a 40 minutes safety car everytime someone crashed just to fix a broken barrier...
 
Might be a dumb suggestion, but why not just NASCAR-esque "SAFER barriers"?

In order to implement the SAFER barrier, there has to be a concrete retaining wall at the back. They can't simply put retaining wall all around the circuit because you have to remember that this is not a permanent race track. If you put the SAFER barrier and let the old barrier be the retaining wall, I think the effect won't be any different.

While it may reduce the impact on the driver, the barrier will still get damaged and there's still need to be repaired in case of hard impact.
 
In order to implement the SAFER barrier, there has to be a concrete retaining wall at the back. They can't simply put retaining wall all around the circuit because you have to remember that this is not a permanent race track. If you put the SAFER barrier and let the old barrier be the retaining wall, I think the effect won't be any different.

While it may reduce the impact on the driver, the barrier will still get damaged and there's still need to be repaired in case of hard impact.

Theres concrete retaining walls in the Porsche curves. They can put the safer barrier there

And Ive seen safer barriers take some huge hits in NASCAR and theres almost never a need to repair them
 
Theres concrete retaining walls in the Porsche curves. They can put the safer barrier there

And Ive seen safer barriers take some huge hits in NASCAR and theres almost never a need to repair them

Yeah, they could put it there but comes around the Mulsanne straight and there about, it's a different story. Oh, I'm sorry if I made a little confusion. The second paragraph of my previous post was meant to be the original barrier that's damaged, not the SAFER barrier. That is if they put the SAFER barrier based on the current existing steel barrier instead of a concrete retaining wall...
 
No there doesn't. Iowa Speedway has only SAFER barriers with no concrete wall.

The SAFER wall includes the concrete wall behind the metal and the foam.

The main problem though, is that they are stupidly expensive to install.
 
Back