Accident Panel releases findings, blames Bianchi for Suzuka
Discussion
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/accident-panel-r...
Conclusions below - check the link for the full article
Conclusions
The review of the events leading up to Bianchi’s accident indicate that a number of key issues occurred, which may have contributed to the accident, though none alone caused it:
1. The semi-dry racing line at T 7 was abruptly narrowed by water draining onto the track and flowing downhill along it. Both Sutil, and Bianchi one lap later, lost control at this point in T 7.
2. Sutil’s car was in the process of being recovered by mobile crane when Bianchi approached Sectors 7 and 8, which include the part of T 7 where the recovery was taking place. Sectors 7 and 8 were subject to double yellow flags.
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.
5. The actions taken following Sutil’s accident were consistent with the regulations, and their interpretation following 384 incidents in the preceding 8 years. Without the benefit of hindsight, there is no apparent reason why the Safety Car should have been deployed either before or after Sutil’s accident.
6. Bianchi over-controlled the oversteering car, such that he left the track earlier than Sutil, and headed towards a point “up-stream” along the barrier. Unfortunately, the mobile crane was in front of this part of the barrier, and he struck and under-ran the rear of it at high speed.
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.
9. Bianchi’s helmet struck the sloping underside of the crane. The magnitude of the blow and the glancing nature of it caused massive head deceleration and angular acceleration, leading to his severe injuries.
10. All rescue and medical procedures were followed, and their expediency are considered to have contributed significantly to the saving of Bianchi’s life.
11. It is not feasible to mitigate the injuries Bianchi suffered by either enclosing the driver’s cockpit, or fitting skirts to the crane. Neither approach is practical due to the very large forces involved in the accident between a 700kg car striking a 6500kg crane at a speed of 126kph. There is simply insufficient impact structure on a F1 car to absorb the energy of such an impact without either destroying the driver’s survival cell, or generating non-survivable decelerations.
It is considered fundamentally wrong to try and make an impact between a racing car and a large and heavy vehicle survivable. It is imperative to prevent a car ever hitting the crane and/or the marshals working near it.
Conclusions below - check the link for the full article
Conclusions
The review of the events leading up to Bianchi’s accident indicate that a number of key issues occurred, which may have contributed to the accident, though none alone caused it:
1. The semi-dry racing line at T 7 was abruptly narrowed by water draining onto the track and flowing downhill along it. Both Sutil, and Bianchi one lap later, lost control at this point in T 7.
2. Sutil’s car was in the process of being recovered by mobile crane when Bianchi approached Sectors 7 and 8, which include the part of T 7 where the recovery was taking place. Sectors 7 and 8 were subject to double yellow flags.
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.
5. The actions taken following Sutil’s accident were consistent with the regulations, and their interpretation following 384 incidents in the preceding 8 years. Without the benefit of hindsight, there is no apparent reason why the Safety Car should have been deployed either before or after Sutil’s accident.
6. Bianchi over-controlled the oversteering car, such that he left the track earlier than Sutil, and headed towards a point “up-stream” along the barrier. Unfortunately, the mobile crane was in front of this part of the barrier, and he struck and under-ran the rear of it at high speed.
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.
9. Bianchi’s helmet struck the sloping underside of the crane. The magnitude of the blow and the glancing nature of it caused massive head deceleration and angular acceleration, leading to his severe injuries.
10. All rescue and medical procedures were followed, and their expediency are considered to have contributed significantly to the saving of Bianchi’s life.
11. It is not feasible to mitigate the injuries Bianchi suffered by either enclosing the driver’s cockpit, or fitting skirts to the crane. Neither approach is practical due to the very large forces involved in the accident between a 700kg car striking a 6500kg crane at a speed of 126kph. There is simply insufficient impact structure on a F1 car to absorb the energy of such an impact without either destroying the driver’s survival cell, or generating non-survivable decelerations.
It is considered fundamentally wrong to try and make an impact between a racing car and a large and heavy vehicle survivable. It is imperative to prevent a car ever hitting the crane and/or the marshals working near it.
Thanks for the info. Seems harsh as the man isn't about to defend his drving actions. The term "slowing enough" is very hard to quantify as ultimately the driver is the one who can feel the grip. I realise they have far more information at their disposal than I, however I feel they could have been a touch more diplomatic. The upshot of that is that they won't do anything different next time, which seems unfair to portion all the blame his way.
I wish jules a speedy recovery.
I wish jules a speedy recovery.
I think that's rubbish, if someone hadn't put a f
king great crane in the way he wouldn't have hit it,
The FIA whitewashing anything that could possibly point to this being their cock up, they allowed the use of this type of recovery vehicle, they did not exorcise there duty of care, the FIA and the circuit need to accept the blame.
king great crane in the way he wouldn't have hit it, The FIA whitewashing anything that could possibly point to this being their cock up, they allowed the use of this type of recovery vehicle, they did not exorcise there duty of care, the FIA and the circuit need to accept the blame.
Adrian W said:
I think that's rubbish, if someone hadn't put a fking great crane in the way he wouldn't have hit it,
The FIA whitewashing anything that could possibly point to this being their cock up, they allowed the use of this type of recovery vehicle, they did not exorcise there duty of care, the FIA and the circuit need to accept the blame.
A number of people on that panel are well respected members of the F1 community such as Ross Brawn, and don't need nor want to whitewash the report.king great crane in the way he wouldn't have hit it, The FIA whitewashing anything that could possibly point to this being their cock up, they allowed the use of this type of recovery vehicle, they did not exorcise there duty of care, the FIA and the circuit need to accept the blame.
F1 has come a remarkable way in terms of safety, especially in panels formed after events such as these. Sadly, it's apparant Jules was travelling too fast under yellows, lost control, and jumped on both pedals. Remember, if that tractor was not there, marshalls still will have been. They could quite easily have been killed outright, it's lucky none were hit.
The double yellows are there for both drivers and marshalls, and absolutely must be respected. I have many issues with the way the FIA run things, but I cannot agree with you.
As much as people will bh and moan about the FIA 'covering themselves' 19 other drivers went through that section in the same conditions and didn't lose control and spin off the track. The car has been examined and nothing failed which leaves only one culprit. The squidgy bit in the drivers seat.
h and moan about the FIA 'covering themselves' 19 other drivers went through that section in the same conditions and didn't lose control and spin off the track. The car has been examined and nothing failed which leaves only one culprit. The squidgy bit in the drivers seat.Think its time for f1 to introduce the same rules that are in wec when a full course yellow is thrown all the cars have to slow down and are limited to a certain speed until the yellow clears all cars have then a 15s warning of when the track goes green.
If drivers consistently ignore yellow flags take that control away from them to do so.
If drivers consistently ignore yellow flags take that control away from them to do so.
Double waved yellows means slow down and be prepared to stop. Racing drivers being racing drivers will slow down as little as they think they can get away with.
Yesterday it was announced that the virtual safety car will be used in races next year. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117009
Yesterday it was announced that the virtual safety car will be used in races next year. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117009
Adrian W said:
I understand and agree regarding his driving, but! If they had approved a different type of recovery vehicle this accident would not have happened, or at least would not have been anywhere near as serious.
And what recovery vehicle do you have in mind? Reality as they say is there had been loads of similar recoveries in the past with no issue.It is unfortunate, and the real comment is where they mention "hindsight". It is unfortunate that changes will be made to procedure with the benefit of hindsight but unfortuately it happens.
Adrian W said:
I understand and agree regarding his driving, but! If they had approved a different type of recovery vehicle this accident would not have happened, or at least would not have been anywhere near as serious.
If the recovery vehicle wasn't there, or if a hundred other factors had been slightly different, then he could have hit the marshalls who were recovering Sutil's car. One of the key conclusions from the investigation was not to try to make this sort of accident more survivable, but to prevent it from happening in the first place, hence the Virtual Safety Car forcing the drivers to slow down, because they won't do it if you don't make them somehow.thegreenhell said:
Adrian W said:
I understand and agree regarding his driving, but! If they had approved a different type of recovery vehicle this accident would not have happened, or at least would not have been anywhere near as serious.
If the recovery vehicle wasn't there, or if a hundred other factors had been slightly different, then he could have hit the marshalls who were recovering Sutil's car. One of the key conclusions from the investigation was not to try to make this sort of accident more survivable, but to prevent it from happening in the first place, hence the Virtual Safety Car forcing the drivers to slow down, because they won't do it if you don't make them somehow.what if he had wiped out the marshals?
the whole point of the flag system is to prevent stuff like this, he ignored the flaggs and paid the ultimate price.
Thanks for the info. Seems harsh as the man isn't about to defend his drving actions. The term "slowing enough" is very hard to quantify as ultimately the driver is the one who can feel the grip. I realise they have far more information at their disposal than I, however I feel they could have been a touch more diplomatic. The upshot of that is that they won't do anything different next time, which seems unfair to portion all the blame his way.
I wish jules a speedy recovery.
I wish jules a speedy recovery.
DanTVR said:
Thanks for the info. Seems harsh as the man isn't about to defend his drving actions. The term "slowing enough" is very hard to quantify as ultimately the driver is the one who can feel the grip. I realise they have far more information at their disposal than I, however I feel they could have been a touch more diplomatic. The upshot of that is that they won't do anything different next time, which seems unfair to portion all the blame his way.
I wish jules a speedy recovery.
I see where you're coming from, but just because he is the ultimate victim here does not mean he get's a free pass on the blame.I wish jules a speedy recovery.
lookup the definition of double waved yellows and then try and square this with his actions at the time.
just before said incident, he was traveling at well over 200Kph in sector of the cct that was under double waved yellows.
Look, I am as sad about his predicament as anybody else is, however, that does not absolve him from his actions.
Scuffers said:
DanTVR said:
Thanks for the info. Seems harsh as the man isn't about to defend his drving actions. The term "slowing enough" is very hard to quantify as ultimately the driver is the one who can feel the grip. I realise they have far more information at their disposal than I, however I feel they could have been a touch more diplomatic. The upshot of that is that they won't do anything different next time, which seems unfair to portion all the blame his way.
I wish jules a speedy recovery.
I see where you're coming from, but just because he is the ultimate victim here does not mean he get's a free pass on the blame.I wish jules a speedy recovery.
lookup the definition of double waved yellows and then try and square this with his actions at the time.
just before said incident, he was traveling at well over 200Kph in sector of the cct that was under double waved yellows.
Look, I am as sad about his predicament as anybody else is, however, that does not absolve him from his actions.
The FIA Panel delivered the facts and not opinions or emotions. As has been said they were looking into how this could be avoided again not made survivable.
I wish Jules all the best but plenty of drivers who have had an off have all at one stage or another had to put their hands up and say "My Bad!" Jules isn't here to do that right now but I have little doubt that had he walked away he would have copped to the accident.
It has long been an issue at all levels of motorsport of drivers not slowing sufficiently through double waved yellows, the unpaid marshalls are there to help and drivers thank them by not driving to the rules, case in point people have mentioned that Jules would be able to feel the level of grip available, not good enough regardless of the available grip a driver needs to slow sufficiently.
Forza Jules and all that but don't take aim at the FIA, if there was some bug cover up involved I very much doubt they would have put such a well liked and respected panel together to investigate.
I wish Jules all the best but plenty of drivers who have had an off have all at one stage or another had to put their hands up and say "My Bad!" Jules isn't here to do that right now but I have little doubt that had he walked away he would have copped to the accident.
It has long been an issue at all levels of motorsport of drivers not slowing sufficiently through double waved yellows, the unpaid marshalls are there to help and drivers thank them by not driving to the rules, case in point people have mentioned that Jules would be able to feel the level of grip available, not good enough regardless of the available grip a driver needs to slow sufficiently.
Forza Jules and all that but don't take aim at the FIA, if there was some bug cover up involved I very much doubt they would have put such a well liked and respected panel together to investigate.
It was a freak incident, yes it could have been avoided, but look how many other very near misses there have been in F1 accidents. Those all went the other way luckily, this time luck went the wrong way. It is pretty incredible that there hasn't been a death in F1 for 20 years, motorsport is dangerous at the end of the day.
Bianchi was driving too fast for the waved yellow conditions, but so were all the other drivers on the track. They're all racing each other, and it's just not in their nature to slow down significantly, particularly when all the other competitors aren't either.
The only thing I'm surprised wasn't mentioned in the report was the marshall waving green flags right next to the incident. Yes, the following section of track was clear, and I drivers are presumably expected to stay cautious until they pass the green flag, but I'm guessing they don't. A bit like when you see a NSL sign, most of us are guilty of accelerating before we are actually past it. In clear conditions that green flag would have been visible about 200m before the scene of the accident, well before Bianchi slid off the track (although the rain would have reduced visibility substantially). It might, possibly, have made a difference if waved yellows were still shown at that point to extend the danger zone. The next marshall post is less than 200m down the track, where they could have started the green flags.
Bianchi was driving too fast for the waved yellow conditions, but so were all the other drivers on the track. They're all racing each other, and it's just not in their nature to slow down significantly, particularly when all the other competitors aren't either.
The only thing I'm surprised wasn't mentioned in the report was the marshall waving green flags right next to the incident. Yes, the following section of track was clear, and I drivers are presumably expected to stay cautious until they pass the green flag, but I'm guessing they don't. A bit like when you see a NSL sign, most of us are guilty of accelerating before we are actually past it. In clear conditions that green flag would have been visible about 200m before the scene of the accident, well before Bianchi slid off the track (although the rain would have reduced visibility substantially). It might, possibly, have made a difference if waved yellows were still shown at that point to extend the danger zone. The next marshall post is less than 200m down the track, where they could have started the green flags.
BritishRacinGrin said:
Sensible stuff from the FIA.
I agree. In fact, I'm surprised how cogent and logical those conclusions are, each of them is indisputable. The point about Jules getting on both pedals is interesting, I imagine whoever designed that particular aspect of the Marussia is having quite a stty time right now.Honestly, the discussion about yellows is nonsensical. There is absolutely no question whether Jules slowed sufficiently for double waved yellows. He left the circuit at high speed, which means he did not slow sufficiently. There can be no defence against this. What happens thereafter isn't actually very relevant, because the recovery strategies are designed on the basis that some of the most professional racing drivers in the world can actually do what's required of them when they see a yellow flag.
What sort of discussion would we be having if Jules had gone off in the same situation in exactly the same manner, but collected a marshal at 80mph rather than a recovery vehicle? In terms of his driving decisions, there is no difference. So you can forget the FIA "whitewashing" anything, he should never have left the circuit.
I wish him all the best for a full recovery, I truly do, because as a racer I sympathise with the mindset that can get you into this sort of situation. But it was nobody else's fault.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff