Jules Bianchi passes away following accident at 2014 Formula 1 Japanese Grand Prix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blitz24
  • 1,602 comments
  • 113,462 views
I am talking about recommendation 4 (not conclusion 4)
It is proposed that a regulation or guideline be established such that the Start time of an event shall not be less than 4 hours before either sunset or dusk, except in the case of night races
Click to expand...
 
Barra333
I am talking about recommendation 4 (not conclusion 4)
Click to expand...

Of course - I knew that!!! :D

And avoiding the rainy season... hmmmm!

Recommendation 4
4-hour Rule:
Article 5.3 of the F1 Sporting Regulations states that:

However, should the race be suspended (see Article 41) the length of the suspension will be added to this period up to a maximum total race time of four hours.

It is proposed that a regulation or guideline be established such that the Start time of an event shall not be less than 4 hours before either sunset or dusk, except in the case of night races.

It is also recommended that the F1 Calendar is reviewed in order to avoid, where possible, races taking place during local rainy seasons.
Click to expand...
 
So, now that I've had a chance to read the report, the fault of the accident is being pinned on Marussia's brake-by-wire system...

Since their setup is different and didn't work right with the failsafe system activation, does this fall back onto the team not having the money like the other teams do to afford a proper brake-by-wire system that would have helped to prevent this from happening?
 
GTPorsche
So, now that I've had a chance to read the report, the fault of the accident is being pinned on Marussia's brake-by-wire system...
Click to expand...
The way I read it was that the cause of the accident was Bianchi ignoring the yellow flags (as do all drivers as per the current culture in racing), the brake system not cutting the engine meant the impact speed was slightly higher (I'd imagine not by much since the car was aquaplaning).
 
GTPorsche
So, now that I've had a chance to read the report, the fault of the accident is being pinned on Marussia's brake-by-wire system...

Since their setup is different and didn't work right with the failsafe system activation, does this fall back onto the team not having the money like the other teams do to afford a proper brake-by-wire system that would have helped to prevent this from happening?
Click to expand...

You can't directly say that from the report;

FIA Report
a number of key issues occurred, which may have contributed to the accident, though none alone caused it...

3.Bianchi did not slow sufficiently to avoid losing control at the same point on the track as Sutil.

4. If drivers adhere to the requirements of double yellow flags, as set out in Appendix H, Art. 2.4.5.1.b, then neither competitors nor officials should be put in immediate or physical danger.
...
7.During the 2 seconds Bianchi’s car was leaving the track and traversing the run-off area, he applied both throttle and brake together, using both feet. The FailSafe algorithm is designed to over-ride the throttle and cut the engine, but was inhibited by the Torque Coordinator, which controls the rear Brake-by-Wire system. Bianchi’s Marussia has a unique design of BBW, which proved to be incompatible with the FailSafe settings.

8.The fact that the FailSafe did not disqualify the engine torque requested by the driver may have affected the impact velocity; it has not been possible to reliably quantify this. However, it may be that Bianchi was distracted by what was happening and the fact that his front wheels had locked, and been unable to steer the car such that it missed the crane.
Click to expand...

However, sections 7 and 8 do gain more significance when you consider the death of Maria de Villota whose car "inexplicably accelerated" into the back of truck with her seemingly unable to stop it.

At this point a conspiracist might wonder (and I think I have before) if part of the dissolution of Marussia has anything to do with a potential call of liability.
 
GTPorsche
So, now that I've had a chance to read the report, the fault of the accident is being pinned on Marussia's brake-by-wire system...
Click to expand...

GOTMAXPOWER
The way I read it was that the cause of the accident was Bianchi ignoring the yellow flags.
Click to expand...

It was a series of unfortunate circumstances that lead to the crash. Take any 1 away and Bianchi walks away from the crash scene.
 
pezzarinho17
It was a series of unfortunate circumstances that lead to the crash. Take any 1 away and Bianchi walks away from the crash scene.
Click to expand...

Well, a couple of circumstances put him on collision course, I think once he was on an unavoidable course the result was a given.

Do you see any similarities with the Villota crash (listen to my above link)?
 
TenEightyOne
Do you see any similarities with the Villota crash (listen to my above link)?
Click to expand...

From what I understand of de Villota's incident, the sound made by the car suggested that anti-stall had kicked in. This propelled the car (it applies around 50% throttle) forwards unexpectedly. That isn't something Marussia were accountable for, as it is a standard system on all cars.

The engine shutoff failsafe is something else though, as there is an element of tuning found between teams and drivers. If it happened if both pedals were pressed at the same time (regardless of %) then it would happen very regularly. The teams therefore decide where the failsafe kicks in, but I would have thought Bianchi would have been pressing hard on both... I don't think we have heard the last on this failsafe, but I wouldn't be surprised if Marussia's system wasn't as developed / tuned as other teams...
 
Wow ... I didn't fully understand the significance of the link you posted until I read this on autosport. I wasn't aware of this failsafe system:

autosport
The report reveals that the brake-by-wire system on Bianchi's Marussia was "incompatible" with a fail-safe system on F1 cars, which is designed to cut the engine when the driver applies brakes and throttle at the same time.
Click to expand...

So I ask, is this failsafe system mandatory? If it is, no wonder Bianchi reacted as he did, and in that case, although due to different technical causes (anti-stall =/= failsafe cut off system) there is a effects similarity between Villota's and Bianchi's accident. In both cases, the cars kept accelerating against their own driver's will.
 
Hun200kmh
Wow ... I didn't fully understand the significance of the link you posted until I read this on autosport....in both cases, the cars kept accelerating against their own driver's will.
Click to expand...

It has to be a credible concern at least in respect of future development. And if some link is found then one wonders if it might have repercussions in the Villota case if not in Bianchi's "in-race" case.

That's not to say I think those things are certain by any means but the same system was in place on both cars, one suffered a could-not-stop on a dry, slow speed manouevre while the second potentially suffered a very similar failure/conflict.

EDIT: I wasn't really aware of this system until now, I presume it was introduced after Massa's Hungary accident where he went in with the fronts locked and the rears driving?
 
Hun200kmh
In both cases, the cars kept accelerating against their own driver's will.
Click to expand...
You have to be careful with the differentiation between 'accelerated against the driver's will' (Villota by the sound it) and 'Didn't cut the engine' (Bianchi). By the sound of the report, nothing electronic kicked into to prioritise one input over another (brake/throttle) - similar to if you jammed your feet on the brake/throttle pedals of your own car simultaneously.
 
Barra333
'Didn't cut the engine' (Bianchi). By the sound of the report, nothing electronic kicked into to prioritise one input over another (brake/throttle) - similar to if you jammed your feet on the brake/throttle pedals of your own car simultaneously.
Click to expand...

There's some genuine room for doubt there, at least reading the report;

8
8.The fact that the FailSafe did not disqualify the engine torque requested by the driver may have affected the impact velocity; it has not been possible to reliably quantify this. However, it may be that Bianchi was distracted by what was happening and the fact that his front wheels had locked, and been unable to steer the car such that it missed the crane.
Click to expand...
 
It's hard to be too judgmental on failed or partially failed electronic safety measures, when the real culprit is the tiny fraction of time between an issue occurring within the car and the unfortunate driver connecting with a heavy, solid head height object. The reaction time available for either driver to do anything that could have possibly saved their lives, would have been miniscule.
 
Drenched grass, I don't think him even putting the brakes on full at that point wold have slowed him anywhere near enough to have avoided all this.
 
TheCracker
The reaction time available for either driver to do anything that could have possibly saved their lives, would have been miniscule.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree slightly; Bianchi's eyes and nerves would have been operating in full scare-mode and I think he spent over a couple of seconds in departure.

On the wider topic; a further article from the BBC on the incident.
 
TenEightyOne
I have to disagree slightly; Bianchi's eyes and nerves would have been operating in full scare-mode and I think he spent over a couple of seconds in departure.

On the wider topic; a further article from the BBC on the incident.
Click to expand...
I think the he means the reaction windows available was miniscule. He had a fraction of a second to correct/over correct/brake/whatever, then there were a couple of seconds to ponder the outcome, with no chance of recourse.
 
Barra333
I think the he means the reaction windows available was miniscule. He had a fraction of a second to correct/over correct/brake/whatever, then there were a couple of seconds to ponder the outcome, with no chance of recourse.
Click to expand...

This is what the report said;

FIA Report
7. During the 2 seconds Bianchi’s car was leaving the track and traversing the run-off area, he applied both throttle and brake together, using both feet. The FailSafe algorithm is designed to over-ride the throttle and cut the engine, but was inhibited by the Torque Coordinator, which controls the rear Brake-by-Wire system. Bianchi’s Marussia has a unique design of BBW, which proved to be incompatible with the FailSafe settings.

8. The fact that the FailSafe did not disqualify the engine torque requested by the driver may have affected the impact velocity; it has not been possible to reliably quantify this. However, it may be that Bianchi was distracted by what was happening and the fact that his front wheels had locked, and been unable to steer the car such that it missed the crane
Click to expand...

We simply don't know, it can neither be categorically included nor excluded.

I don't think there's any liability in Bianchi's case but I continue to be concerned that there was no similar inquiry into the accident suffered by Villota that led to her death.

I saw anti-stall mentioned earlier, the last time I recall there being a claim of "anti-stall" actually pushing a car was when Coulthard hit the pit wall. At the time I seem to remember that there was a difference of opinion about whether he was correct in that or not.

I've certainly never seen anti-stall propel a car forward in the way described by witnesses at Villota's test.
 
I'm going to be honest: I don't have enough knoweledge to debate this further.
 
Once Jules' car left the track, nothing would have change the direction of the vehicles momemtum, barring launching it, considering how wet it was. Only the way it was facing on impact could have been changed.
 
Doesn't help that the brakes had locked up. He might have had a very slim chance if they didn't.
 
has his condition changed?
 
A Statement from the Bianchi Family | 30 December 2014

Nice, France

The parents of Jules Bianchi, Philippe and Christine, would like to provide the following update regarding Jules’ medical situation:

“As we reach the conclusion of a difficult year for our family, we wanted to take this opportunity to provide a further update regarding Jules’ medical situation, per our pledge to communicate continued information, when appropriate, to his many fans.

“It was a significant and very comforting step for us to be able to bring Jules home to France last month, to continue his rehabilitation surrounded by his family and friends. This is very important for Jules and also for us.

“Since that time, Jules has received the very best treatment in the Intensive Care Unit of Le Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (CHU) and now at the CHU’s rehabilitation centre for this kind of trauma.

“Jules’ neurological status remains unchanged; he is unconscious but able to breathe unaided. Whilst there is no significant information to report, we take a great deal of comfort from the fact that Jules continues to fight, as we knew he would, and this has enabled the medical professionals caring for him to commence the planned, but very painstaking, programme of rehabilitation therapy.

“As we reflect on the events of the past few months, we would like to acknowledge once again the overwhelming warmth and affection shown towards our son. These continue to be challenging times for our family, but the knowledge that he has touched the lives of so many people all around the world has helped us through.

“We would also like to acknowledge the respect and support shown by the media towards our family during this time, for which we are extremely grateful.

“We will continue to provide information when it is possible to do so and our sincere appreciation to everyone who continues to pray for Jules.”

Source
 
I say the true cause of the effects of the incident was the marshals being released and put into a dangerous position as well as the truck. I don't know the ins and outs of the marshalling process but that shouldn't happen when there is a danger of more cars going to the direct accident scene.
This happened in 1994 when Brundle hit a Marshall and could have happened in the 2007 Nurburgring race. Marshals should never be released into an area of danger until there is a far reduced chance of something like this happening either via the Virtual Safety Car or other means.
 
jake2013guy
I say the true cause of the effects of the incident was the marshals being released and put into a dangerous position as well as the truck. I don't know the ins and outs of the marshalling process but that shouldn't happen when there is a danger of more cars going to the direct accident scene.
Click to expand...
By that logic, the marshals and recovery vehicles could never enter the circuit limits because there is always a danger of cars going directly into the accident scene.

Bianchi didn't leave the circuit because the marshals and recovery vehicles were there. He was always leaving the circuit; they simply happened to be there. And give his direction, speed and the amount of available run-off, there was always going to be a massive accident - a bit like Heikki Kovalainen going into the Turn 1 armco at Barcelona a few ago, only worse as Kovalainen was caught by the tyre barriers, whereas Bianchi was going straight into the armco.
 
The FIA is considering legal action against Philippe Strieff after some comments he made about the report on Bianchi's accident:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/01/...crash-investigation-prompts-legal-action-fia/

There is some contention over exactly what he said, but it appears that he has accused Todt of stacking the review panel with sympathisers and sycophants to produce a report exonerating the FIA of any responsibility, effectively covering it up.

Given that the Schumachers have also been critical of Strieff for overstating his relationship with Michael Schumacher, I wonder if there is something in this.
 
Back