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

  • Thread starter Blitz24
  • 1,602 comments
  • 83,585 views
If Jules didn't fall off the track going the speed he did, you can't tell me he would of been penalised for going the speed he went because he wouldn't of.

So blaming him for speeding is invalid.
 
RX-7_FD3S
things they dont know like he was going way too fast or other **** I've read.
Click to expand...

Smokey Nismo
Don't remind me mate, I figuratively puked blood when I heard that Jules was at fault for not slowing down enough.
Click to expand...

He aquaplaned. That basically defines 'too fast for the road conditions'. The fact that it was double waved yellow doesn't help matters. Sure, there are other factors at play, but it is pretty hard to argue that speed was not a major factor.
 
mustafur
If Jules didn't fall off the track going the speed he did, you can't tell me he would of been penalised for going the speed he went because he wouldn't of.

So blaming him for speeding is invalid.
Click to expand...

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

You're not punished for doing 70mph/130kph in torrential rain on a motorway but you shouldn't risk it. You drive as fast as the conditions indicate. When cars are aquaplaning and there are double waved yellows, that is an indication that you should slow down of your own volition or that the race director should intervene and force the cars to slow down.

Hindsight is 20/20 but as Barra just said, too fast for the road conditions.
 
Liquid
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

You're not punished for doing 70mph/130kph in torrential rain on a motorway but you shouldn't risk it. You drive as fast as the conditions indicate. When cars are aquaplaning and there are double waved yellows, that is an indication that you should slow down of your own volition or that the race director should intervene and force the cars to slow down.

Hindsight is 20/20 but as Barra just said, too fast for the road conditions.
Click to expand...
Not the same thing, you just compared a situation where there is a speed limit and one where there is no proper limit.

This is the point though, the way the speed limit of the Rules permitted is flawed and open to interpretation.

But yes he went too fast for the road conditions, but when the FIA said he didn't slow down enough for the double yellows that is completely open to interpretation and not technically correct given precedent.
 
prisonermonkeys
The idea behind the case is that while motorsport is dangerous, the authorities have a responsibility to minimise that danger where possible. No doubt the central argument will be in the way a tractor was allowed into the circuit confines and the way the danger was managed. After all, the tractor was positioned in a place where a car had previously gone off; given the conditions, another car going off in the same place in the same manner was a forseeable event.


Except that Walker and his friend were being irresponsible, driving over the speed limit in a car that apparently had not been serviced properly.
Click to expand...
I thought the official report of the Walker accident from the police was that it happened at the speed limit, and was caused by mechanical failure?

Edit: my 4000th post.
 
Last edited:
sk8er913
I thought the official report of the Walker accident from the police was that it happened at the speed limit, and was caused by mechanical failure?
Click to expand...
Walkers daughter tried to sue Porsche but they had no case to answer so presumably there was no mechanical failiure.
 
mustafur
Not the same thing, you just compared a situation where there is a speed limit and one where there is no proper limit.
Click to expand...

How come only two cars aquaplaned from the circuit then? Bianchi was going too fast. He certainly wasn't prepared to stop. You might say that because other drivers escape penalties then his speed wasn't an issue... but we're not discussing that, we're discussing the facts of this particular crash.

This case is about whether or not the responsibility for providing the opportunity for such an accident should be more fully examined. In fairness, I think it should.

Hartstein's comments about the potential lack of a simulation hospital run from the circuit should be answered - we all know that helicopter availability is key and that the only time a session should run is if an ambulance can make it to the designated trauma centre by road in 20 mins. The ambulance took nearly an hour - why did that happen? My own opinion is that it wouldn't have saved Bianchi in any case. However, Hartstein leaves that question open and I think it's also fair that it should be examined.

As I've already said; if this case is about a real learning opportunity and about a greater examination of the combined facts (cars running with heavy lifting vehicles beside the circuit, the tardy ambulance run, the double-yellow rather than red or SC) then it should be entertained. If the case is solely about money and/or revenge then it shouldn't.
 
sk8er913
I thought the official report of the Walker accident from the police was that it happened at the speed limit, and was caused by mechanical failure?
Click to expand...

"In March 2014, further investigation revealed that the speed of the car was the main reason for the crash. The car was said to be traveling between 80 miles per hour (130 km/h) and 93 miles per hour (150 km/h) and had nine-year-old tires that were seldom driven on"
 
Barra333
He aquaplaned. That basically defines 'too fast for the road conditions'. The fact that it was double waved yellow doesn't help matters. Sure, there are other factors at play, but it is pretty hard to argue that speed was not a major factor.
Click to expand...

Does it really ? I thought aquaplanning was not depending on speed rather on the amount of water standing on the track and how well the car can evacuate it ?

Maybe he took a bad line where there was more water standing because of something that happen early in the lap ? Can you affirm that he was on the exact same line or should have been on the exact same line as the other drivers on track at this time ? And if there was an aquaplanning chance that could result in an encounter with the recovery vehicule, shouldnt they have play it safe and put a red flag ?

The driver will always take stupid decision, it's the job of the race control to assure their safety, at least that's how I see it.
 
GTP_Ingram
Tyres are only able to clear a finite volume of water within any given time. The faster you're going, the greater the volume of water that needs to be cleared.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's on regular car that are high off the ground, a f1 can aquaplane her underfloor (not sure how it's call, the big plate that is under all f1 cars). And I dont think speed as anything to do with it, rather the flow of water on tracks. That's why it's so dangerous to have f1 when it's raining. Not because of the tyres.
 
RX-7_FD3S
Yeah but that's on regular car that are high off the ground, a f1 can aquaplane her underfloor (not sure how it's call, the big plate that is under all f1 cars). And I dont think speed as anything to do with it, rather the flow of water on tracks. That's why it's so dangerous to have f1 when it's raining. Not because of the tyres.
Click to expand...

A tyre will aquaplane once the tyres grooves are 'full' - that's going to happen long before the underfloor touches any standing water. With a ride height of 20mm front and 70mm rear - on a dry set-up, the water has to be pretty deep.
 
TheCracker
A tyre will aquaplane once the tyres grooves are 'full' - that's going to happen long before the underfloor touches any standing water. With a ride height of 20mm front and 70mm rear - on a dry set-up, the water has to be pretty deep.
Click to expand...

The sparks from beneath an F1 car are from when the titanium under-plank hits the floor. Your ride height is failing to take aerodynamic compression or road bumps into account. It's perfectly feasible for an F1 car to aquaplane on the underfloor.
 
Both the intermediate tyres and the wet tyres that Pirelli provide (and all other F1 tyre manufacturers I would presume) have a larger radius to them in order to raise the ride height. Makes sense since the weather can change mid-race, but a team cannot raise and lower the ride height mid-race.
 
Cole Brown
Ok, I haven't studied international Law yet, but can't be too much different...
Click to expand...

You'll be learning a lot then, 1 country down, 194 to go. For reference Britain has the Limitations Act (1980) which limits various actions in Civil Law but, like nearly half of the States you'll have studied, there is no statutory limitation for Criminal Law.

This case is being called in England which would fall under British law. If the case ends up at Assises in France then it would doubtless be called as delits, they're well with any limitations on hearing or enforcement for that.
 
RX-7_FD3S
The driver will always take stupid decision, it's the job of the race control to assure their safety, at least that's how I see it.
Click to expand...

No way. The existence of race control does not give the drivers free rein to be as lunatic as they like. The drivers and teams are required to evaluate the conditions, fit what they feel to be an appropriate tyre and drive accordingly.

The conditions might be suitable for full wets, but the team and driver think that the conditions will change back to intermediates soon and so choose to remain out at a slower pace on intermediates to avoid an unnecessary pit stop. That's their choice, completely legal, and race control has no business forcing them onto wets just because the driver *could* go too fast and crash.

If a driver feels that the track is unsafe, pull in or slow down. It's their life on the line. See Adelaide 1989.

 
G
TenEightyOne
You'll be learning a lot then, 1 country down, 194 to go. For reference Britain has the Limitations Act (1980) which limits various actions in Civil Law but, like nearly half of the States you'll have studied, there is no statutory limitation for Criminal Law.

This case is being called in England which would fall under British law. If the case ends up at Assises in France then it would doubtless be called as delits, they're well with any limitations on hearing or enforcement for that.
Click to expand...
Good to know then, thank you.
 
Imari
No way. The existence of race control does not give the drivers free rein to be as lunatic as they like. The drivers and teams are required to evaluate the conditions, fit what they feel to be an appropriate tyre and drive accordingly.

The conditions might be suitable for full wets, but the team and driver think that the conditions will change back to intermediates soon and so choose to remain out at a slower pace on intermediates to avoid an unnecessary pit stop. That's their choice, completely legal, and race control has no business forcing them onto wets just because the driver *could* go too fast and crash.

If a driver feels that the track is unsafe, pull in or slow down. It's their life on the line. See Adelaide 1989.

Click to expand...
calling Bianchi à lunatic is pushing it à bit.
 
RX-7_FD3S
calling Bianchi à lunatic is pushing it à bit.
Click to expand...

As daan so kindly pointed out, I didn't. I said that the existence of race control does not give drivers free rein to drive like lunatics.

I never said that Bianchi or any other driver was a lunatic, any more than you said Bianchi or any other driver was stupid when you said:

RX-7_FD3S
The driver will always take stupid decision...
Click to expand...

See how that works?
 
Sadly it's a year ago today he sadly passed to the race track in the sky with all the others who passed racing on 2 wheels or 4
 
RIP Jules Bianchi.jpg
 
IforceV8
Slow zone,SC, leave the car there with a local yellow as a last resort, but sending construction equipment out on a hot track on the outside of the turn were a car just crashed should NEVER happen.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent I agree, however, they weren't undergoing any sort of cyclone. At that point in the race, there really isn't a need to even extract the car, so the JCB is entirely unnecessary anyways.
 
I think it was safer to keep the car there with a local yellow.

Crashes can happen anytime and I saw a lot of vehicles passing by the scene in the video, that's a lot of instances where any of the drivers could lose control and go straight into the crane, I'm glad it did not happen.
 

Latest Posts

Back