Varying standards of safety in motorsport

[Mike Rotch]

So to recap this past weekend for motorsport fans:

1) 24H of Lemans: Vast closing speeds of different class of cars in the dead of night, with amateur drivers thrown into the mix. Almost ended badly for Mike Rockenfeller. Very badly.

2) MotoGP held in heavy rain at Silverstone. Nevermind the rain itself, standing water accounted for several top riders. No safety cars or red flags throughout the weekend.

3) F1 held in rain at Montreal. Safety car start required to 'protect the drivers' - but all it did was lose tyre temperature for 4 laps and make life more difficult when it did get underway.

I really think the powers that be are losing the plot with regards to safety. How can there be such diverging safety starts across three premier race categories? You'd never see amateurs in F1, despite Lemans having higer speeds. F1 would never allow night races without enough spotlights to embarrass the sun, nevermind darkness save for your own headlights. MotoGP would never allow night races at all and F1 doesnt allow wet races to be unmolested by safety cars, but MotoGP does.

What is going on?

 

[niky]

LeMans is LeMans... that's just the way it is. I think the problems have to do with people ignoring safety regulations and blue flags...

MotoGP, you don't often need a full-course yellow... drivers and bikes naturally just slide off the course. Races do get red-flagged, though... I'm puzzled why this one didn't get delayed... there were previous races with this much water that were called off due to conditions... but then... there was also wind and driving rain to contend with.

I don't think the safety considerations diverge... all series still use the same flag systems. You're still penalized in each one for causing a crash either willingly or through gross negligence. The only difference is that in F1 they were a little overcautious with the start... but those things launch hard and accelerate like nothing else. In the spray from a wet start, one stalled car might lead to a pile-up and a red-flag pretty quick. Not the same as with MotoGP, where the bikes are so narrow that nearly the entire field can enter the first corner line abreast.

 

[Feschka]

What's going on...

No clue, frankly.

The "Safety car start" in Canada was pretty pathetic, there was no such a tornado to scrap one of the most thrilling part of a F1 race.

Sissies.

 

[Roo]

How can there be such diverging safety starts across three premier race categories?

Because each category is run by a different organisation, each with its own safety rules and regulations: Le Mans is run by the ACO (Automobile Club de l'Ouest), Moto GP by the FIM (Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme), and F1 by the FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, no relation to the FIM).

 

[Submerged]

The strange thing, is nowadays in Le Mans and F1, the carbon fibre shells just shatters all over the place. In the past when they used metal alloys, it would just deform or bend, instead of just shattering and creating a massive mess all over the place.

This means that there is more danger to the crowd and marshalls alike, with these flying shards of carbon fibre.

It may not just be about keeping it safer for the drivers, but it also could be about making it safer for the crowd and marshalls on the racetracks.

I think the organisations are having to take that into account more than before.

 

[TenEightyOne]

1) 24H of Lemans: Vast closing speeds of different class of cars in the dead of night, with amateur drivers thrown into the mix. Almost ended badly for Mike Rockenfeller. Very badly.

That's a sport with a completely different dynamic from MotoGP or F1. There's no doubt that McNish and Rockenfeller were incredibly lucky - but such accidents DO happen at high speed, with or without slower cars. Le Mans is dangerous, no doubt about it. Car design makes it safer.

2) MotoGP held in heavy rain at Silverstone. Nevermind the rain itself, standing water accounted for several top riders. No safety cars or red flags throughout the weekend.

The visibility is better though (relatively speaking) and the requirements for bike tracks are much stronger in terms of available run-off area and deccelaration space. You're less likely to see a SC in MotoGP because in serious weather conditions the race wouldn't be started at all... and MotoGP accidents can usually be cleared much more quickly than accidents in sportscar/F1 racing. If the rider's fit and the bike's alive then the rider will clear it themselves

3) F1 held in rain at Montreal. Safety car start required to 'protect the drivers' - but all it did was lose tyre temperature for 4 laps and make life more difficult when it did get underway.

I really think the powers that be are losing the plot with regards to safety. How can there be such diverging safety starts across three premier race categories? You'd never see amateurs in F1, despite Lemans having higer speeds. F1 would never allow night races without enough spotlights to embarrass the sun, nevermind darkness save for your own headlights. MotoGP would never allow night races at all and F1 doesnt allow wet races to be unmolested by safety cars, but MotoGP does.

What is going on?

The SC start at Montreal was extremely frustrating but it was the right thing to do. What was the alternative? Almost certainly a huge accident in the low visibility and grip. Would you like another Olivier Panis, another Robert Kubica? Maybe another Ayrton Senna?

Canada is THAT dangerous. You see drivers end up in the wall regularly during sessions with dry track and clear skies... starting a pack off on a 135mph lap in the rain would be irresponsible. It would also have the effect of potentially removing front running cars from a restarted race.

Frustrating start, yes, but the circumstances demanded it unfortunately.

The strange thing, is nowadays in Le Mans and F1, the carbon fibre shells just shatters all over the place. In the past when they used metal alloys, it would just deform or bend, instead of just shattering and creating a massive mess all over the place.

This means that there is more danger to the crowd and marshalls alike, with these flying shards of carbon fibre.

That's a fairly incorrect view. The 'sharpness' of carbon fibre shards is a myth, you couldn't pick one up and cut yourself with it - the edges are comparatively soft when compared to metal. The danger comes when you present the solid piece to a hot tyre that's revolving quickly.

If you see a car hit a barrier and stop without losing any bits or deforming then the driver's brain is probably dead mush.

If you see a car losing bits and pieces then it's dissipating energy as all those pieces are broken away, that's what saves drivers' lives. If it was safer to build crash structures from metal then that's how they would be built.

There'll always be a danger to crowds, marshalls and drivers, you'll see 'Motorsport is Dangerous' on every single pass! I just don't think that you can compare Moto GP, LM or F1 in terms of how they handle the dangers. Some things like medical arrangements, fire arrangements and crowd safety are the same, but when you look at how the races are run they demand completely different solutions.

 

[Ardius]

If one can't see the difference between a F1 car aquaplaning in intense spray in front of 23 similar cars and a rider falling off his MotoGP bike in relatively less spray..they really need to go back think long and hard about it.
I don't profess to know all about motorbikes (in fact I know very little) but I would have thought a bike handles a lot better in standing water than an F1 car. An F1 car loses all its control in standing water if it aquaplanes. I'd also say F1 cars generate more spray than anything else due to their wings and probably even more now with the blown diffusers.

Not being able to see where you are going and running with the possibility that you could randomly lose control (through no fault of your own) or someone else could have in the spray ahead of you is not a "varying standard of safety".

Le Mans is a different case entirely, its basically a different sport. Its nothing to do with safety standards per se, but more to do with a different style of racing where hugely varying speeds of car can compete. In turn, they also have different rules to help the safety aspect of this (such as recently agreeing that the fastest cars are the ones who have to make overtakes work, the slower car must always stick to the racing line to be predictable).

 

[TenEightyOne]

There was one extremely worrying safety point raised by yesterday's Montreal GP.

Marshalls should NOT be allowed to carry out debris clearance until the pack is formed behind the SC. Only a week or so ago there were posts on this forum about Tom Pryce, the F1 driver whp collided with a marshall who was carrying a fire extinguisher. The marshall was effectively bisected and his remains were unidentifiable until a roll-call of marshalls was carried out. The almost-decapitated Pryce was also killed instantly.

We came very close to seeing a fatal car-on-marshall accident yesterday, twice in 10 seconds. Unacceptable.

 

[Mike Rotch]

If one can't see the difference between a F1 car aquaplaning in intense spray in front of 23 similar cars and a rider falling off his MotoGP bike in relatively less spray..they really need to go back think long and hard about it.

If you can stomach it, Youtube the late Shoya Tomizawa's accident where he came off his bike in broad daylight in front of other riders.

If you cant see the danger of a rider coming off in front of the pack in lo-vis conditions, then you might be the one in need of a long hard think.

I don't profess to know all about motorbikes (in fact I know very little)

This means this next opinion:

but I would have thought a bike handles a lot better in standing water than an F1 car.

is a bit void. Aquaplaning is aquaplaning. Whether its a 800hp GP car or a 280HP Motogp bike. At least in a GP car you have some measure of impact protection if you aquaplane off circuit - bike riders have their helmet and leathers.

 

[Ardius]

Wouldn't this argument trend more to MotoGP being unsafe without safety cars for such conditions? Why is it that its being turned around as an argument against F1? The answer: the conditions in MotoGP were not comparable and the safety concern is far less than for F1.
I have a hard time believing FIM would be happy to not go on the side of caution for safety in such conditions, just as the FIA has.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Wouldn't this argument trend more to MotoGP being unsafe without safety cars for such conditions? Why is it that its being turned around as an argument against F1?

...Good point 👍

The culture in bike riding is that injuries are a fait accompli. In the last 3 races there have been 3 broken collarbones and one broken leg in the two premium classes, but for some reason its seen as acceptable. In F1, for example after Perez's accident, there is immediately talk of improved safety. Its curiously absent from MotoGP.

 

[DustDriver]

is a bit void. Aquaplaning is aquaplaning. Whether its a 800hp GP car or a 280HP Motogp bike. At least in a GP car you have some measure of impact protection if you aquaplane off circuit - bike riders have their helmet and leathers.

+ a F1 car doesn't fall over that quickly.

 

[Submerged]

That's a fairly incorrect view. The 'sharpness' of carbon fibre shards is a myth, you couldn't pick one up and cut yourself with it - the edges are comparatively soft when compared to metal. The danger comes when you present the solid piece to a hot tyre that's revolving quickly.

If you see a car hit a barrier and stop without losing any bits or deforming then the driver's brain is probably dead mush.

If you see a car losing bits and pieces then it's dissipating energy as all those pieces are broken away, that's what saves drivers' lives. If it was safer to build crash structures from metal then that's how they would be built.

There'll always be a danger to crowds, marshalls and drivers, you'll see 'Motorsport is Dangerous' on every single pass!

I understand for the drivers why carbon fibre is a good thing due to losing the potential energy of the car and slowing the impact down to the body and saving lives. I did mention that previous older style cars would deform or break apart before carbon fibre came into use, but did not make that clear.

My issue was, at the Le Mans accident with McNish, when he slammed into the barriers and the carbon fibre shards were flying pretty fast, if they had hit someone, wouldn't that have caused some serious injury? It is a piece of carbon fibre that does have a point at the end of it. Flying at 100mph or 60mph and striking a person, the end result would still be the same, it would cut into the skin if there was a pointy bit on it (due to it being ripped apart/sheared off/whatever).

Unless of course, someone can show that this wouldn't be the case?

 

[TenEightyOne]

My issue was, at the Le Mans accident with McNish, when he slammed into the barriers and the carbon fibre shards were flying pretty fast, if they had hit someone, wouldn't that have caused some serious injury? It is a piece of carbon fibre that does have a point at the end of it. Flying at 100mph or 60mph and striking a person, the end result would still be the same, it would cut into the skin if there was a pointy bit on it (due to it being ripped apart/sheared off/whatever).

Unless of course, someone can show that this wouldn't be the case?

That's a fair enough point - even a cushion in the face at 200mph would be more than unpleasant

I think in the case of McNish's accident there are two important points;

a) The cars' deformation and the deformation factor of the Armco worked well in terms of protecting the driver

b) Whoever the official was who allowed soft people-bodies into an area on the exit of a 100mph turn that's only protected by a 1-metre-high piece of Armco should be roundly and soundly whipped.

 

[Hollidog]

I understand for the drivers why carbon fibre is a good thing due to losing the potential energy of the car and slowing the impact down to the body and saving lives. I did mention that previous older style cars would deform or break apart before carbon fibre came into use, but did not make that clear.

My issue was, at the Le Mans accident with McNish, when he slammed into the barriers and the carbon fibre shards were flying pretty fast, if they had hit someone, wouldn't that have caused some serious injury? It is a piece of carbon fibre that does have a point at the end of it. Flying at 100mph or 60mph and striking a person, the end result would still be the same, it would cut into the skin if there was a pointy bit on it (due to it being ripped apart/sheared off/whatever).

Unless of course, someone can show that this wouldn't be the case?

Im not sure about this particular case, but in most circuits there are high catch fences to stop this exact thing happening. And if it was going to be like this at Le Mans, considering as they necessitated catch fences since 1955 Le Mans.

On carbon fibre shards, if it was an issue, surely we would have seen something on it? Im not saying that it should be a reactive action, and that we should wait for someone to die before we do something about it, but considering as it hasnt happened to anyone yet then the systems that are in place must already be doing their job.

MotoGP I think is accepted as being much more unsafe than car racing. Just as riding a bike on the road is much less safe then driving car on the road. I dont think much can be done to improve safety in MotoGP. Unfortunately that is just they way it is.

 

[F1 fan]

If you can stomach it, Youtube the late Shoya Tomizawa's accident where he came off his bike in broad daylight in front of other riders.

If you cant see the danger of a rider coming off in front of the pack in lo-vis conditions, then you might be the one in need of a long hard think.

Thanks for bringing up the traumatizing incident. As far as I remember, the reason Shoya was hit was due to how close behind him the two riders were.

If I recall correctly, they were so close that they could not have avoided him regardless of the visibility conditions. I'm not going to watch the accident again and I don't recommend anyone else does.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

MotoGP I think is accepted as being much more unsafe than car racing. Just as riding a bike on the road is much less safe then driving car on the road. I dont think much can be done to improve safety in MotoGP. Unfortunately that is just they way it is.

There is only so much you can do to make motorcycle racing safe, and as it stands, MotoGP is a pretty well governed series. I think the two main reasons for this are as follows - The board of riders, made up of the experienced riders on the grid, have the final say on whether it's safe to race or not. If one says it isn't safe, nobody races.

The racing suits now have airbags fitted to prevent spinal damage, which provides a HUGE reduction in risk. Sure, you will always get broken bones, but collar bones and wrist bones heal up pretty well.

Watching the Isle of Man TT this past week really got me thinking about safety (3 dead if I remember correctly, two sidecar riders and one motorcycle rider - about normal for the TT) and how there is so much potential for more fatalities. The TT is very rider-centric, and like MotoGP, the riders get the final say on whether to race or not - their experience and judgement is vital to keeping things sensible around the 30-odd mile course with an average speed of around 133mph.

The McNish crash was clearly a best case scenario. The car could have easily flipped over the barrier and pinned the media against the catch fencing. That is why media have a special pass and sign on the dotted line to say they take full responsibility for their own safety while beyond the catch fencing. They accept and take the risk and have to deal with whatever the consequences of that might be.

I'm not going to comment much on the state of the F1. For me, Montreal was a farce, as are most modern F1 races held in the wet. I understand the cars really aren't suited to those conditions, but for me it seems like watered-down motorsport (no pun intended). I'd like to see cars that can run in torrential rain (no matter how much they need to reduce their pace) and leave it up to the driver and the team to use their skill and cunning to bring the car home in a good position.

 

[TenEightyOne]

. For me, Montreal was a farce...I'd like to see cars that can run in torrential rain (no matter how much they need to reduce their pace) and leave it up to the driver and the team to use their skill and cunning to bring the car home in a good position.

The cars CAN run in the rain... the drivers can't.

With visibility of less than 10 metres you couldn't drive a car at 30mph and eventually the cars would crash. What's the point in even running a race like that?

I still agree that the SC start and subsequent interlude were very frustrating, but in a sense they gave race the platform to eventually become one of the all-time classics.

I'll admit that watching a driver wreck a race car at high speed before climbing out and giving an embarrassed wave to the crowd can be exciting to watch... but that doesn't mean that we should run races when the conditions guarantee crashes.

Another factor is the track itself. Such conditions at Silverstone Arena 11 might have been 'runnable', the track at Montreal is just too tight to allow quick or safe recovery of the inevitably crashed cars.

Look back to Kubica and Panis (ouch!) to see how bad crashes can be in the dry at Montreal... and then factor in the rain.

 

[Furinkazen]

One thing often pointed out is that the more spectacular an accident, the better for the driver as the impact is being dissipated, the energy is being lost. McNish and Rockenfeller's accidents destroyed the cars, but they walked out. Compare to the accident for the Gulf AMR Aston at le Mans that left its driver in hospital with a punctured lung. The car spins, hits the wall solidly, looks in one piece but the driver is badly hurt.



The same can also be said of Dale Earnhardt Snr's crash at Daytona. It was no where near as spectacular as Tony Stewarts flip, but did a lot more (fatal) damage sadly.

 

[TheCracker]

The McNish crash was clearly a best case scenario. The car could have easily flipped over the barrier and pinned the media against the catch fencing. That is why media have a special pass and sign on the dotted line to say they take full responsibility for their own safety while beyond the catch fencing. They accept and take the risk and have to deal with whatever the consequences of that might be.

The McNish crash was also unusual as it's not somewhere on the circuit crashes usually occur. It's a popular spot for photographers so it's unlikely that they'd have been extra catch fencing at that spot. The spectator enclosure behind the service road is well covered by the fencing, so the general public was never in any real danger.

The same can also be said of Dale Earnhardt Snr's crash at Daytona. It was no where near as spectacular as Tony Stewarts flip, but did a lot more (fatal) damage sadly.

Unfortunately Earnhardt's attitude to modern safety standards was partly his own downfall in this incident. Had other drivers in that race been in his shoes they'd probably have survived it.

 

[RufusGonePunk]

There is only so much you can do to make motorcycle racing safe, and as it stands, MotoGP is a pretty well governed series. I think the two main reasons for this are as follows - The board of riders, made up of the experienced riders on the grid, have the final say on whether it's safe to race or not. If one says it isn't safe, nobody races.

The racing suits now have airbags fitted to prevent spinal damage, which provides a HUGE reduction in risk. Sure, you will always get broken bones, but collar bones and wrist bones heal up pretty well.

Watching the Isle of Man TT this past week really got me thinking about safety (3 dead if I remember correctly, two sidecar riders and one motorcycle rider - about normal for the TT) and how there is so much potential for more fatalities. The TT is very rider-centric, and like MotoGP, the riders get the final say on whether to race or not - their experience and judgement is vital to keeping things sensible around the 30-odd mile course with an average speed of around 133mph.

The McNish crash was clearly a best case scenario. The car could have easily flipped over the barrier and pinned the media against the catch fencing. That is why media have a special pass and sign on the dotted line to say they take full responsibility for their own safety while beyond the catch fencing. They accept and take the risk and have to deal with whatever the consequences of that might be.

I'm not going to comment much on the state of the F1. For me, Montreal was a farce, as are most modern F1 races held in the wet. I understand the cars really aren't suited to those conditions, but for me it seems like watered-down motorsport (no pun intended). I'd like to see cars that can run in torrential rain (no matter how much they need to reduce their pace) and leave it up to the driver and the team to use their skill and cunning to bring the car home in a good position.

Good post. I can't believe it took 17 posts to bring up the TT.

It's true though, if the riders didn't want to take the risks they wouldn't compete. You only have to look at Guy Martin, who last year was hospitalised after he had a huge, potentially fatal crash at 160mph. This year he didn't even think about lifting through the same corner, he just kept the throttle pinned down. In fact, after the accident he was quoted as saying he's 'not sure how you can find the will to live watching day time telly, so whether it kills me or not, I'm off back to work.'

I guess there's more of a difference between current bikers and drivers with regard to their outlook on their safety and mortality.

Edit: I agree with your bit about F1 too. Thank god some drivers really stepped up their game, otherwise it would've been a pretty poor race. I think Martin Brundle got it spot on my saying that the 24 drivers on the grid are the 24 best in the world and they should be able to drive within their and their car's limits, no matter what the conditions.

 

[Hollidog]

What also amazes me about bike riders is they get injured, and then they race again the next week. The guy who came third at silverstone (his name escapes me) had his collarbone fractured in five places. I don't think that is a disregard for your own safety, that is a love of your sport and your job. I personally know the pain of trying to race with broken bones, a few years ago I broke 2 of my ribs and cracked another when karting, the pain was excruciating when it happened, but a botch job of a number plate, a Kevlar rib protector and a high dose of painkillers and I was on my way again.

On the topic of big crashes and walkaways then a definite watch is Fabian Coulthards crash at Bathurst last year. Car tears itself to pieces and he walks away. I was lucky (or unlucky) enough to be with his dad Rikki when it happened. He thought his own son was dead...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Earnhardt Sr thought that the new-fangled HANS device was for wusses, sadly.

As pointed out he died in exactly the kind of cranial-intertia-across-the-neck accident that HANS was designed to protect against

 

[TheCracker]

Earnhardt Sr thought that the new-fangled HANS device was for wusses, sadly.

As pointed out he died in exactly the kind of cranial-intertia-across-the-neck accident that HANS was designed to protect against

His loose belts and open face helmet didn't help matters either.

 

[Pupik]

His loose belts and open face helmet didn't help matters either.

As I recall, HANS sales jumped roughly twenty-fold after Earnhardt's death, so it wasn't popular with many drivers across the sport as a whole.

 

[TheCracker]

As I recall, HANS sales jumped roughly twenty-fold after Earnhardt's death, so it wasn't popular with many drivers across the sport as a whole.

Early HANS was restrictive and uncomfortable to wear, i can see why drivers were slow on the uptake. It's better now and i suppose the new generation of drivers know nothing else.

 

[daan]

Do you have to wear one?

 

[TheCracker]

No thankfully. Although they've come down in price they're still expensive, and then you have to have a HANS compatible helmet, compatible seat and seat belts too.

 

[TenEightyOne]

HANS is compulsory in some serious, especially those with a high risk of lateral Gs being dissipated across the cervix. Most open-wheel formulas definitely require it.

Re The Intimidator... he was from another time altogether. That's not a criticism, he just came from a place where driver safety meant taking responsibility for your own crashes. His death was a tragedy because it was avoidable and it came after a long period of relative safety in NASCAR.

 

[TheCracker]

Any series internationally sanctioned by the FIA requires it.