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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blitz24
  • 1,602 comments
  • 113,451 views
mustafur
A: They knew weather was coming well before the race was started that may or may not effect the outcome of the only means of transport within regulations getting to a Hospital

B: Why the race was allowed to start with this being the case.
Click to expand...

The direction of a typhoon can and does vary (as recent experience shows here in the Philippines, where several different agencies had Typhoon Ruby charting wildly different tracks across the Philippines)... the speed... does not.

A typhoon will never speed up after landfall. So the organizers knew enough about the typhoon to know that strong winds that would prevent helicopter flight (and, obviously... racing itself... any wind strong enough to endanger a chopper would make a mess of the race) would not come within the time window for the race. What they wanted to avoid was the rain.

Heavy fog at the hospital can occur whether or not there's a typhoon. There's not always a direct correlation between the two.
 
prisonermonkeys
You're cherry-picking your facts to suit the argument. Allow me to punch a gaping hole in your case to show you what I mean:


Firstly, they did not know that the weather was coming. They knew that it could come, as typhoons - just like hurricanes and tropical cyclones; they are all the same thing - can and do change direction without warning. Given that the circuit only caught the outer rim of the typhoon, there was never any guarantee that it would hit (if there was, the race never would have taken place, since the winds can be faster than the cars).
Click to expand...
To deny that they didn't expect it though is completely Bollocks as they had requested a start time change.
Secondly, you claim that the ambulance was "the only means of transport", even though one of your previous posts - in which you quote the report - directly contradicts this:


So if you're not cherry-picking your facts, what are you doing?
Click to expand...

All this does is show you can't comprehend as I didn't say that, what I said was: "They knew weather was coming well before the race was started that may or may not effect the outcome of the only means of transport within regulations getting to a Hospital"
Which obviously applies to the Helicopter not the Ambulance

You have also thus far made a point of ignoring the timeline in which Bianchi needed to be stabilised and extracted from the car. As per the report, a decision was made, but no context is given as to when it was made. Between stabilising Bianchi and the deteriorating weather conditions, twelve minutes in travel time could have been lost, which by your own argument, is a case of force majeure.

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the stewards knew that the travel time would be over twenty minutes when they made the decision to use an ambulance, which you have so far failed to demonstrate. All that you have shown so far is that the travel time was over twenty minutes, not that the stewards knew that it would be.
Click to expand...
Incase you didn't Read the first two times it was posted: FIA chief medical officer Jean-Charles Piette: "The main referral hospital, which is Mie General Medical Centre, is 15km from the circuit. The distance by road is supposed to be 25 minutes under normal circumstances.

And under FIA Regulations it says: "An evacuation under intensive care by medically equipped ambulance (equipment and presence of a doctor proficient in resuscitation on board) with an escort may, however, be carried out, provided that the receiving hospital has been approved beforehand for the treatment presumed necessary according to the casualty’s condition and that it can be reached in approximately 20 minutes (except for serious burns), regardless of the weather and road traffic conditions".
 
niky
The direction of a typhoon can and does vary (as recent experience shows here in the Philippines, where several different agencies had Typhoon Ruby charting wildly different tracks across the Philippines)... the speed... does not.

A typhoon will never speed up after landfall. So the organizers knew enough about the typhoon to know that strong winds that would prevent helicopter flight (and, obviously... racing itself... any wind strong enough to endanger a chopper would make a mess of the race) would not come within the time window for the race. What they wanted to avoid was the rain.

Heavy fog at the hospital can occur whether or not there's a typhoon. There's not always a direct correlation between the two.
Click to expand...
Do you know of any sources that explains the full reason why the helicopter couldn't land?

Being Fog this may clear up the issue im talking of here, as it certainly would justify Force Majeure.

I think @prisonermonkeys thinks im being offensive or cherry picking by bringing this up but im genuinely just digging through what information is available here to find what FIA did was Actually Done Via regulations.
 
Last edited:
They don't make race tracks based on nearest hospital! 20 minutes is set as a preferred window. Looking through the circuits on the F1 calendar, only two circuits (Melbourne and Sochi) would actually fit in this if it were set in stone. You're going through thinking that every FIA rule is as solid as stone, and it isn't the case. It would ultimately come down to what the medical personnel feels is best. Another curveball: If Bianchi was known to have suffered a grave head injury, why would they even consider a helicopter which would create pressure to his injury due to changing altitudes? You're, as noted by @niky and @prisonermonkeys picking through things hoping that you're argument is somehow more solid than the rules to which you're pointing out.
 
BRRT_Angel
They don't make race tracks based on nearest hospital! 20 minutes is set as a preferred window. Looking through the circuits on the F1 calendar, only two circuits (Melbourne and Sochi) would actually fit in this if it were set in stone. You're going through thinking that every FIA rule is as solid as stone, and it isn't the case. It would ultimately come down to what the medical personnel feels is best. Another curveball: If Bianchi was known to have suffered a grave head injury, why would they even consider a helicopter which would create pressure to his injury due to changing altitudes? You're, as noted by @niky and @prisonermonkeys picking through things hoping that you're argument is somehow more solid than the rules to which you're pointing out.
Click to expand...
All Tracks have to be within the 20 min Window to be acceptable to hold the event, the helicopter would likely be used In most cases.

Also nothing has been suggested that taking the helicopter would effect Bianchi's condition and it's not like the people involved are not doctors.

I Guess taking him from Japan to France would of done plenty of head injury.
 
mustafur
All Tracks have to be within the 20 min Window to be acceptable to hold the event, the helicopter would likely be used In most cases.

Also nothing has been suggested that taking the helicopter would effect Bianchi's condition and it's not like the people involved are not doctors.

I Guess taking him from Japan to France would of done plenty of head injury.
Click to expand...
Yet you are arguing based on land transport? Pick a side here. And technically still no, as there are 7 venues where travel by air is 30 minutes, those venues being Nürburgring, Hockenheimring, Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Sepang International Circuit, Bahrain International Circuit, Red Bull Ring, and Hungaroring.
 
BRRT_Angel
Yet you are arguing based on land transport? Pick a side here. And technically still no, as there are 7 venues where travel by air is 30 minutes, those venues being Nürburgring, Hockenheimring, Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Sepang International Circuit, Bahrain International Circuit, Red Bull Ring, and Hungaroring.
Click to expand...

Isn't Spa further?
 
TDZdave
Just vaguely remember John Watson saying something about the distance when Marcus Mahy and Vadim Kogay were airlifted direct from circuit,
Click to expand...
It's actually pretty far away, reminiscent of Zanardi's travel time at Lausitz
 
Interesting to read this FIA release about Philippe Streiff's comments on Bianchi.

For those who don't remember; Streiff also claimed to have "inside knowledge" of Schumacher's condition - also apparently erroneously. That led to a lot of discussion at this forum and many others and was, as many here said, complete BS.
 
Been quiet on the news front. Ive seen reports that his condition hasnt changed hea still in a coma. Get well soon Jules.
 
Bianchi's father gives an update, sadly there isn't much new news.

BBC.
 
The longest recorded coma was 37 years. Considering that was quite a while ago (she died in 1978), it's entirely possible to spend a decent lifetime in a coma.
 
Interesting trio of stories at the top of the BBC1 F1 website, bring back fear, change the sport, and Jules Bianchi.

I think changes do indeed need to be made but I suppose this is a reminder of what can happen if full care isn't taken.

BBCF1News.PNG
 
As long as it is a fear of retiring from a mistake, rather than having a serious crash, then I agree. I have taken part in that survey as well.

There can never be anything in Formula 1 that comes before safety.
 
The HSE (the UK Health and Safety Executive) have announced that no further action is to be taken against Marussia/Manor over the death from head injuries of Maria de Villota.

This may be significant to the legal side of the Bianchi case. F1 cars are wired so that hitting the brake+accelerator stalls+brakes the car, a measure that was put in place after Massa's notorious incident in Hungary. There have been suggestions that the dual-pedal fail-safe didn't work in Bianchi's crash and that it may not have worked in Villota's crash in the same car.

It must remain simply a terrible coincidence that two drivers for the same team, in the same car, have received life threatening injuries in such similar accidents.
 
TenEightyOne
The HSE (the UK Health and Safety Executive) have announced that no further action is to be taken against Marussia/Manor over the death from head injuries of Maria de Villota.

This may be significant to the legal side of the Bianchi case. F1 cars are wired so that hitting the brake+accelerator stalls+brakes the car, a measure that was put in place after Massa's notorious incident in Hungary. There have been suggestions that the dual-pedal fail-safe didn't work in Bianchi's crash and that it may not have worked in Villota's crash in the same car.

It must remain simply a terrible coincidence that two drivers for the same team, in the same car, have received life threatening injuries in such similar accidents.
Click to expand...

Were both crashes in the very same chassis ot are you referring to the team?
 
TDZdave
Were both crashes in the very same chassis ot are you referring to the team?
Click to expand...

A car designed by the same team albeit with a different powerplant. Villota crashed the MR01 Cosworth while Bianchi crashed the MR03 Ferrari.

The similarity in the descriptions of the accidents are clear. Villota's car inexplicably accelerated and clearly the FailSafe didn't activate. We don't have the telemetry for Villota's car but we know that Bianchi did try to activate FailSafe to stop the car. It didn't work due to the nature of the Marussia systems.

Using the same chassis wouldn't be a relevant fact even if they had; the failure was due to a Marussia design overlaying a prescribed system. The question is whether or not Villota's car suffered the same systemic failure that Bianchi's demonstrably did.

It's possible that with the current compensation claim Marussia/Manor are withholding data regarding Villota's crash, we may know more once it's in open court. It remains to be seen which (if any) liabilities remain with the team in their current form.
 
It will be very bad news if the investigation into Maria de Villota's accident indicates the FailSafe was triggered but didn't work, and then happened again in Jules Bianchi's crash. To highlight a major risk that caused serious injury, there are very serious consequences to not rectifying the problem which later rears it's head again.
 
I'm not disputing any of the facts in your post, @TenEightyOne but I still think that the failsafe thing had very little to do with the outcome of Bianchi's crash. He was always going to hit the crane once he left the track (before the 2 foot stomp). The report you linked said that there was 2 seconds where which the failsafe should have been active. Obviously the speed differential (with/without failsafe) is not quantifiable, but I dont think it would be enough to alter the outcome enough to not need this thread.
 
Barra333
I'm not disputing any of the facts in your post, @TenEightyOne but I still think that the failsafe thing had very little to do with the outcome of Bianchi's crash.
Click to expand...

I suspect that you're correct but it's hard to deny the consideration that if the FailSafe hadn't been overriden by the Marussia software then the car might have decelerated dramatically thereby transferring weight to the front wheels sufficiently to unlock them and/or give him more steering ability. We saw from the crash that there was a matter of a foot-or-so between Bianchi having a "normal" head-on into the barriers and his head striking the sloped rear underside of the recovery vehicle.

Would 2 seconds be enough to make a difference? I think it's impossible to say for sure... but having smashed a couple of cars up in my time I an assure you that 2 seconds is a long time even at road speeds.

I repeat that I think you're probably correct though.
 
TenEightyOne
...the car might have decelerated dramatically thereby transferring weight to the front wheels sufficiently to unlock them and/or give him more steering ability.
Click to expand...
He was aquaplaning, then on the gravel. Steering was never an option - speed at impact was about the only thing that could have been changed. Had there been a huge paved runoff, it might be a different story...
 
Barra333
He was aquaplaning, then on the gravel. Steering was never an option - speed at impact was about the only thing that could have been changed. Had there been a huge paved runoff, it might be a different story...
Click to expand...

With respect, the car's final trajectory was along tarmac, the car's fronts were locked up at that point. You can see in the frame below that the truck's rear wheels are on the tarmac escape/access road, Bianchi's car travelled along that. In this frame Bianchi's car is arriving left-to-right at the bottom left of the picture.

Note: I've added this still from the notorious crash video but believe I cannot upload the video itself. I'm self-reporting the post to allow the mods to decide if even this still is allowed. If not I'll make a diagram.

BianchiStill.jpg
 
Back