or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 45 comments are related to an article called:

Automatic Speed Limiting

Page 1 of 2

comment by Admin2 (U2)

posted on 11/10/14

Seems quite difficult to implement in practice. How would you control the green flag point where the car was released, or would the restriction be applied to all cars regardless of their proximity to the incident.

If you are just applying it on sections, there may be a situation whereby the incident is cleared for trailing cars allowing them to make up time, which could be crucial in the case of a faster stop, etc

As this has been raised because of Bianchi's crash, I'm not convinced a mandatory speed restriction would have prevented this incident, given it's circumstances.

posted on 11/10/14

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

posted on 11/10/14

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

posted on 11/10/14

Just deploy the effin safety car. Not rocket science

comment by Admin2 (U2)

posted on 11/10/14

comment by M.U.D.D - Luke Shaw makes me throb with desire... (U9612)
posted 45 minutes ago
Just deploy the effin safety car. Not rocket science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It must be pretty frustrating for both drivers and teams to have a perfectly executed strategy unravel because a back marker has clipped a wall which leads to a SC deployment. It's possible that a fixed speed limit applied across the field would prevent this.

posted on 11/10/14

Actually I hadn't thought about a blanket speed limit throughout the track. In some ways it would be better than the SC. At least if someone had built a big lead, in theory that lead should stay the same.
The pit lane limiter has to be applied by the driver, hence why they sometimes forget and get penalised foe exceeding the limit.

posted on 11/10/14

The only way to make it work is to limit the speed across the field to nullify any advantage/disadvantage due to the incident. This is exactly the kneejerk reaction many were hoping would be avoided.

However their are massive potential dangers of this. By limiting power and torque at the drop of a hat on certain tasks at certain points could be very dangerous. Yes a pre warn and possible override would help.

However none of this is really required. A mistake was made by not using the SC in those circumstances after Sutils off. It really is that simple. The rescue vehicles used weren't too blame the fact that under those wheather conditions it was just common sense.

Race drivers have one setting and Charlie knows this so he should have taken the decision out of their hands.

posted on 11/10/14

Tasks *tracks

posted on 11/10/14

sounds a very good idea on a number of levels , i would imagine the technology is available for the teams to fit a little wi/fi ( or whatever ) controlled gizmo in the car that the fia could trigger to slow all the cars down to one identical very slow speed whenever the yellow flags come out -

This also might negate the need in some circumstances for the safety car which of course has always been very unfair on the lead driver so on that level alone it is a good idea -

As usual the fia are now covering there incompetent backsides with a range of idea"s that should have been in place before the incompetence of them and the japanese officials at suzuka had ruined the career and the life of a promising young driver --

posted on 11/10/14

To be fair Martial the marshells did their difficult job to the best of their abilities under the circumstances and the fact that with the weather conditions I'm still confused to why the SC was not sent out with Sutils off.

Although the fact that the issue is being turned towards the drivers should not be of surprise to anyone.

posted on 11/10/14

MA I think it is unfair to blame the stewards at Suzuka. I was critical in a couple of articles about the waved green, but they actually were correct in their actions.
Yes the FIA and CW should have put out the SC, but also ALL the drivers should have lifted more than they did.
However it WAS an accident and accidents happen in all walks of life. No one could have foreseen what happened. Like no one could foresee what happened in San Marino in 94.
The FIA can only react to certain events / accidents after the event.
They change the rules and regulations to prevent future occurrences, yet at the same time keep the spirit of the sport. That is a high speed, open top racing formula. Such a formula is inherently dangerous, but the drivers know that, and that is part of the thrill, what makes them do what they do.
If the FIA were to make it completely safe it would be radio controlled cars with the drivers in their simulators......

posted on 11/10/14

comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 17 minutes ago
MA I think it is unfair to blame the stewards at Suzuka. I was critical in a couple of articles about the waved green, but they actually were correct in their actions.
Yes the FIA and CW should have put out the SC, but also ALL the drivers should have lifted more than they did.
However it WAS an accident and accidents happen in all walks of life. No one could have foreseen what happened. Like no one could foresee what happened in San Marino in 94.
The FIA can only react to certain events / accidents after the event.
They change the rules and regulations to prevent future occurrences, yet at the same time keep the spirit of the sport. That is a high speed, open top racing formula. Such a formula is inherently dangerous, but the drivers know that, and that is part of the thrill, what makes them do what they do.
If the FIA were to make it completely safe it would be radio controlled cars with the drivers in their simulators......


----------------------------------------------------------------------
here what you are saying GC but for me it was inexcusable that the FIA and the japanese officials allowed a gigantic 4 ton lump of metal trackside a few yards from the actual track under such dangerous conditions without a safety car , just sheer incompentence that somebody should have thought thru first before it was allowed trackside -

and again for me that oversight has cost a young driver his career and ruined his life and the lives of his family and loved ones and i really think somebody from the fia should be held to account -

as for imola 94 -- again the FIA at the time were warned the previous day by the drivers of putting a slow safety car on track at very slow speeds and how tyre temperatures would drop at the start of the race in the event of a break in the racing ,

so what did they do when lamy had his accident -
------ they put a vauxhall on track as a safety car which caused senna"s tyre temp to drop which contributed in the death of the greatest driver that this planet will ever see , then of course they do what they do best and introduce a range of safety precautions after the horrendous events of may 1st 94 --

posted on 11/10/14

Martial, Senna died because of a rushed modification on a steering column that was completely unacceptable with the equipment available. Much research has been done on all available video to prove that the back end of the car did not move at all proving the tyre pressure argument a complete myth.

Those responsible for the tragedy at Imola will never face justice and the FIA completely assited that process.

What other vehicles would you use to recover F1 cars instead? The clue is in the title 'gravel trap' they are impossible to even walk across, they are designed to stop things with very little surface contact at silly speed very quickly. It wasn't the machinery it was the management of the situation end of. Under the weather conditions it should have been a SC and that is the direction that should be looked at.

No drivers didn't slow appropriately for double yellow even Massa and Bianchi but that's racing drivers that is their DNA so why didn't Charlie make the call for them, that is the real elephant in the room here

posted on 12/10/14

They put 4 ton lumps out at most tracks other than Monaco. The only reason they don't use them there is because of the impracticalities of them.
The biggest issue would appear to be the conditions and the likelihood of another car coming off.
However I don't recall the conditions being THAT bad when Sutil went off. The front runners were still running reasonable lap times as I recall (haven't checked lap times so could be wrong).
Interesting to hear Hamilton's comments about him not having too much issue with the conditions. Didn't he say there wasn't much if any standing water, though he also said his car had good downforce and maybe other teams (Sauber & Marussia) suffered through a lack of downforce.
Saying that, the speed Bianchi was going and the fact he was not sliding sideways, kind of suggests he went straight on at 7. Aquaplane, brake failure, steering problems, sudden lack of downforce, these could all be contributary factors to him not turning or slowing.
We are all assuming the first and by reference blaming CW the FIA and the driver(s). Has there been any reports on what actually happened other than he hit that recovery vehicle.

posted on 12/10/14

Dru, my comments regarding Imola were meant to include all 4 accidents. Barrichello, Ratzenburger, Lamy and Senna.
They ALL contributed to a whole raft of safety measures being brought in since.

posted on 12/10/14

Dru I also have to disagree with you on the steering column issue.
I know he is bound to say this, but Adrian Newey in an article in the Guardian says video evidence from Schumachers car shows there WAS a step out at the rear, followed by Senna lifting off the throttle, which is what he would do in an attempt to counter oversteer. Half a second later he braked. If the column broke BEFORE the accident he would have experienced understeer and would have reacted differently.

posted on 12/10/14

comment by Dru We_Are_Coming_Forest (U1626)
posted 6 hours, 50 minutes ago
Martial, Senna died because of a rushed modification on a steering column that was completely unacceptable with the equipment available. Much research has been done on all available video to prove that the back end of the car did not move at all proving the tyre pressure argument a complete myth.

Those responsible for the tragedy at Imola will never face justice and the FIA completely assited that process.

What other vehicles would you use to recover F1 cars instead? The clue is in the title 'gravel trap' they are impossible to even walk across, they are designed to stop things with very little surface contact at silly speed very quickly. It wasn't the machinery it was the management of the situation end of. Under the weather conditions it should have been a SC and that is the direction that should be looked at.

No drivers didn't slow appropriately for double yellow even Massa and Bianchi but that's racing drivers that is their DNA so why didn't Charlie make the call for them, that is the real elephant in the room here


----------------------------------------------------------------------

i know what you are saying about the steering column on senna"s FW16 dru and for yrs i did think it had effectively broken in two after the modification that williams made to it ,
however the official report that was conducted after did throw the blame at a loss of tyre temp and the subsequent bottoming out that followed which was very evident by the sparking from the FW16 when the race restarted -
----- however i must admit i have never been completely convinced that williams did not concoct a pack of lies and his steering column did not fail before the accident so i guess we will never know the real truth on that one -
--- however the point is the drivers told the FIA about the dangers of a slow safety car the day before the race and the FIA chose to ignore there advice -

yeh -- as you say the management of the situation at japan was at fault and what happened would never have happened if the safety car had come out but as usual charlie whiting and his cronies will gloss over that one all be it if the lives of a driver and his loved ones have been completely ruined --




posted on 12/10/14

comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 7 hours, 37 minutes ago
They put 4 ton lumps out at most tracks other than Monaco. The only reason they don't use them there is because of the impracticalities of them.
The biggest issue would appear to be the conditions and the likelihood of another car coming off.
However I don't recall the conditions being THAT bad when Sutil went off. The front runners were still running reasonable lap times as I recall (haven't checked lap times so could be wrong).
Interesting to hear Hamilton's comments about him not having too much issue with the conditions. Didn't he say there wasn't much if any standing water, though he also said his car had good downforce and maybe other teams (Sauber & Marussia) suffered through a lack of downforce.
Saying that, the speed Bianchi was going and the fact he was not sliding sideways, kind of suggests he went straight on at 7. Aquaplane, brake failure, steering problems, sudden lack of downforce, these could all be contributary factors to him not turning or slowing.
We are all assuming the first and by reference blaming CW the FIA and the driver(s). Has there been any reports on what actually happened other than he hit that recovery vehicle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

the point being GC whatever way you slice it the conditions were very treacherous by the sheer fact that sutil and JB came off at the same place at relatively slow speeds and to put a huge lump of metal in the line of fire in such conditions without a safety car for me is incompetence by so called intelligent people that should be held accountable --

posted on 12/10/14

Martial to be fair I did over simplify my point as i was replying via my phone

You are spot on the slow SC did play is part and the massive hit on the bottom of Sennas car fundamentally was the point that the column began to fail.

There were two excellent documentaries which were subsequently banned by the FIA, the Italian courts, Williams F1 and old bernie himself as they clearly showed evidence that proved the back of the car did not react to an oversteer step out. It's almost impossible to find the Schumacher footage any longer and the fact that Senna ran by preference slightly lower pressures it would have amplified the oversteer away from the corner not towards it.

Go I totally understand the relevance of raising the incident as that weekend change the sport absolutely for the better.

Just out of interest what do you guys think to the fact that the Italian legal system is still trying to pursue this case 20 years on?

posted on 12/10/14

comment by Dru We_Are_Coming_Forest (U1626)
posted 6 hours, 36 minutes ago
Martial to be fair I did over simplify my point as i was replying via my phone

You are spot on the slow SC did play is part and the massive hit on the bottom of Sennas car fundamentally was the point that the column began to fail.

There were two excellent documentaries which were subsequently banned by the FIA, the Italian courts, Williams F1 and old bernie himself as they clearly showed evidence that proved the back of the car did not react to an oversteer step out. It's almost impossible to find the Schumacher footage any longer and the fact that Senna ran by preference slightly lower pressures it would have amplified the oversteer away from the corner not towards it.

Go I totally understand the relevance of raising the incident as that weekend change the sport absolutely for the better.

Just out of interest what do you guys think to the fact that the Italian legal system is still trying to pursue this case 20 years on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

must admit dru i never realised the italian legal system is still pursuing the case , to be honest i thought it was done and dusted a few yrs ago -
To be honest it is probably a good thing as clearly williams or the FIA were at fault , to suggest that senna made an error at a relatively easy corner as tamberello is laughable which by the simple laws of deduction can only mean williams made a camels ar/se of the steering column or the FIA were to blame for not following the drivers advice about the safety car procedure at the time -

To be honest dru i relate the whole sorry affair to something like the hillsborough disaster that was covered up for yrs by lies and deceit and only recently those at fault have finally been made accountable -

In fairness if williams did put a sub standard alteration on the FW16 steering column they did not do it on purpose so nothing can be gained by prosecuting frank williams and newey 20 yrs after it happened but as far as the FIA are concerned if it is ever proven that they arrogantly chose to ignore the drivers advice i hope they are bought to book over it -

------------ however i fear the passage of time and the mere fact that nobody really wants to dredge it all up again has let the real culprits whoever they might be off the hook ---

posted on 12/10/14

Seems like a couple of confused conspiracy theories. Video footage no longer available, data from the black box. Maybe it was a combination of faulty steering column, low tyre temps due to following the slow SC puncture due to debris, who knows.
The facts were he ran off the track and hit a solid wall at a relatively shallow angle which in most cases would have caused nothing more than a few bruises and a hurt ego. Unfortunately the right front wheel and hub was ripped off along with part of a suspension joint. Just by chance that suspension joint penetrated the weakest part of Senna's helmet and hit him just above the right eye causing, according to the pathology report, almost instantaneous death. I didn't watch the restarted race as I knew he was dead before he was taken away in that helicopter.
It was an accident which no one could foresee. Mistakes were made by all parties and possibly even by the great man himself. As was stated in the judges findings F1 is a prototype formula. The cars are effectively one offs.
Nowadays in the age of H&S and litigation things are much stricter. 1994 was a different world and we shouldn't make judgements now on what happened then. Any future investigation by the Italian courts would IMO be wrong.
Senna was my F1 hero, and had been since that race at Monaco in the Toleman. On May 1st 1994 he was taken away from us. I have NEVER blamed anyone for what happened. I think it is right to find out why things happen to help prevent it happening again, but to constantly want to apportion blame for an accident in an inherently dangerous sport is pointless.

posted on 12/10/14

comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 17 minutes ago
Seems like a couple of confused conspiracy theories. Video footage no longer available, data from the black box. Maybe it was a combination of faulty steering column, low tyre temps due to following the slow SC puncture due to debris, who knows.
The facts were he ran off the track and hit a solid wall at a relatively shallow angle which in most cases would have caused nothing more than a few bruises and a hurt ego. Unfortunately the right front wheel and hub was ripped off along with part of a suspension joint. Just by chance that suspension joint penetrated the weakest part of Senna's helmet and hit him just above the right eye causing, according to the pathology report, almost instantaneous death. I didn't watch the restarted race as I knew he was dead before he was taken away in that helicopter.
It was an accident which no one could foresee. Mistakes were made by all parties and possibly even by the great man himself. As was stated in the judges findings F1 is a prototype formula. The cars are effectively one offs.
Nowadays in the age of H&S and litigation things are much stricter. 1994 was a different world and we shouldn't make judgements now on what happened then. Any future investigation by the Italian courts would IMO be wrong.
Senna was my F1 hero, and had been since that race at Monaco in the Toleman. On May 1st 1994 he was taken away from us. I have NEVER blamed anyone for what happened. I think it is right to find out why things happen to help prevent it happening again, but to constantly want to apportion blame for an accident in an inherently dangerous sport is pointless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

so unless it was a a fault of senna himself which it was not as he had taken that corner literally thousands of times in his complete career without incident you are saying we should just willy nilly gloss over exactly who was to blame for the loss of the greatest driver that will ever walk the planet -
-------- unfortunately some of us cant do that GC but unfortunately that is exactly what has happened and nobody for fear of criminal proceedings has had the guts to take any responsibility for his death -

as i said in my post to dru it reeks of the hillsborough disaster but thankfully for the poor souls that perished the guilty were eventually bought to account after many yrs of lies and deceit
--------- to my mind senna deserves the same respect --

posted on 13/10/14

My apologies to all. This topic has moved from a proposed introduction of a safety measure into one about something which happened 20 years ago.
Everyone has their own view of what happened that fateful day and who was to blame. If you read my previous post, I don't blame anyone.
However one thing I can say for sure, is that because of what happened on that WEEKEND, not just the Sunday, F1 is a much safer sport than it has ever been. Accidents happen. When they do can anything be done to prevent them happening again. That's what happens.
Maybe the drivers and stewards should insist on Risk Assessments and Method Statements from the FIA and the manufactures before every race. I don't think so do yo?

posted on 13/10/14

comment by go-cellino-go (U6730)
posted 3 minutes ago
My apologies to all. This topic has moved from a proposed introduction of a safety measure into one about something which happened 20 years ago.
Everyone has their own view of what happened that fateful day and who was to blame. If you read my previous post, I don't blame anyone.
However one thing I can say for sure, is that because of what happened on that WEEKEND, not just the Sunday, F1 is a much safer sport than it has ever been. Accidents happen. When they do can anything be done to prevent them happening again. That's what happens.
Maybe the drivers and stewards should insist on Risk Assessments and Method Statements from the FIA and the manufactures before every race. I don't think so do yo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

with respect you bought up imola 94 GC and dru and myself have just continued with our opinions ,

from my point of view i believe incompetence from anybody that causes fatalities has to held accountable , in just about every other walk of life this is the case why should sport be any different --

posted on 13/10/14

MA, with respect that's why I apologised.

Page 1 of 2

Sign in if you want to comment