Donington Track Safety
Discussion
Potatoes said:
A lot of the comments here stink of complacency... Ryan's was a fairly serious accident, could have been worse and rather than brushing it, off lessons should be learned.
Is there a little arse covering going on?
I take great offence at the use of the word complacency - that's bang out of order.Is there a little arse covering going on?
In so much as my business is based at Donington Park and circa 40% of my turnover is for events at Donington Park then yes, I am "covering my arse" as you so beautifully put it. I do not work for Donington Park and have no say whatsoever in the safety of the venue but I do not wish to see the Wheatcroft Estate close the venue because of the snowball effect from some "one-in-a-million" shunt that would have definitely been made worse by the presence of a gravel trap (Ryan would have undoubtedly rolled instead as he left the track sideways) and could have quite possibly been worse with the presence of tyres (he already bounced a LONG way along the concrete - who's to say how far he could have bounced back - into the path of an LMP1 car doing 150+ mph down craners?)
Nobody is brushing anything, lessons are always being learned (hence Donington Park spending £1M over the Winter on improvements) but if every motorsport venue were to respond with a knee-jerk reaction to every freak accident that occurred then we'd all be paying ten times the current rate to rent the circuits.
Everyone wants safety in motorsport to improve, but if you want a safe hobby - take up snooker and leave motorsport to those of us who understand and are happy with the risks involved rather than try and legislate it out of existence.
In summary, if Donington Park was the new minimum benchmark for track safety from the MSA, we'd go from having 13+ MSA licenced circuits to 2 or 3 at most in the UK.
Jonny
BaT
I think that you are forming opposing views here when there is actually no need to do so. Yes, people do have a right to comment on individual incidents, but it should be tempered with the real world view of whether or not it is one of a string of similar incidents, or a single event that has its own particular set of causes.
Circuit safety is always an ongoing exercise, based on incidents that happened, accidents that happened, potential incidents that were avoided and potential accidents that were avoided.
Nobody in circuit management or maintainence is ever complacent over such things. Incidents are ALWAYS examined after the fact and a judgement is then made on any alteration thereafter. If there is not a 100% consensus that an alteration should be made, it generally means that there are Pros & Cons to any proposed change. At that point it is then logged to discuss with the MSA, FIA, ACU, MCRCB and FIM at the next suitable juncture - usually the next Track Inspection.
Changes are seldom, if ever, made on the basis of a single incident - as the consequences of catering for a specific set of circumstances could lead to making the situation worse for a different scenario at the same point. That call does not come down to the individual circuit (although they do often make recommendations) it comes down to the various licencing authorities.
Circuit Licencing is always a fine balancing act and it invariably ends in some kind of compromise between the safety of the participants, the safety of the marshals and the safety of the spectators. There is very seldom an instance where anything is black or white, as all of those things have long since been dealt with.
It is therefore a little unfair to criticise the circuit team for something that is not actually entirely within their remit and something that they would already have looked at many times.
I would also agree that Donington Park is one of the very best maintained and safest venues in the country. I say all of this from the point of view of someone who has been involved in the circuit licencing process for nearly 20 years (at many many venues not just at Donington Park either).
As car competitors you are very lucky to have a man in the shape of John Symes (MSA Track Inspector) who understands risk management from all points - competitors, venues, spectators and marshals. If John thinks there is a problem, he will fix it - he is never afraid to make a stand on safety and you will not meet anyone more diligent than him. If he thinks the existing set up is the best compromise, he will say so.
All that said. When YOU are the individual who has had a near miss, it makes it very personal and you do tend to view it from that singular angle. That's just natural and I am very glad that you (the driver) are OK.
Circuit safety is always an ongoing exercise, based on incidents that happened, accidents that happened, potential incidents that were avoided and potential accidents that were avoided.
Nobody in circuit management or maintainence is ever complacent over such things. Incidents are ALWAYS examined after the fact and a judgement is then made on any alteration thereafter. If there is not a 100% consensus that an alteration should be made, it generally means that there are Pros & Cons to any proposed change. At that point it is then logged to discuss with the MSA, FIA, ACU, MCRCB and FIM at the next suitable juncture - usually the next Track Inspection.
Changes are seldom, if ever, made on the basis of a single incident - as the consequences of catering for a specific set of circumstances could lead to making the situation worse for a different scenario at the same point. That call does not come down to the individual circuit (although they do often make recommendations) it comes down to the various licencing authorities.
Circuit Licencing is always a fine balancing act and it invariably ends in some kind of compromise between the safety of the participants, the safety of the marshals and the safety of the spectators. There is very seldom an instance where anything is black or white, as all of those things have long since been dealt with.
It is therefore a little unfair to criticise the circuit team for something that is not actually entirely within their remit and something that they would already have looked at many times.
I would also agree that Donington Park is one of the very best maintained and safest venues in the country. I say all of this from the point of view of someone who has been involved in the circuit licencing process for nearly 20 years (at many many venues not just at Donington Park either).
As car competitors you are very lucky to have a man in the shape of John Symes (MSA Track Inspector) who understands risk management from all points - competitors, venues, spectators and marshals. If John thinks there is a problem, he will fix it - he is never afraid to make a stand on safety and you will not meet anyone more diligent than him. If he thinks the existing set up is the best compromise, he will say so.
All that said. When YOU are the individual who has had a near miss, it makes it very personal and you do tend to view it from that singular angle. That's just natural and I am very glad that you (the driver) are OK.
Potatoes said:
Johnny, it's the opposite of bang out of order mate. We should be able to highlight these issues here and not expect them to be rubbished or brushed over.
I am not your 'mate'.Having spent an hour in race control on Tuesday going through what happened and reviewing the CCTV footage I can assure you I have not 'rubbished' or 'brushed over' this incident and everyone is entitled to discuss it ad infinitum as far as I'm concerned. I will not, however, sit by and read about the "poor circut safety" at Donington Park when everyone who is anyone in motorsport knows full well that is not the case. To think otherwise is ignorant and deluded.
I am not going to engage you any further. Good day!
Jonny
BaT
Wearing my Insurance hat.
Should any circuit in the UK have concrete walls as the sole 'barrier' stopping a race car leaving a track at speed. No, of course not. Cars get destroyed, insurance costs rise, and in extreme cases, lives lost. But as others have typed above, the choices currently available in the market are limited, and tyres, gravel traps etc may not be the answer for every corner / unprotected area.
Is Donington safe. IMO, yes, extremely. I would rather insure clients running there then other circuits in the UK, like Oulton or Cadwell, or European circuits like Imola or Zolder.
And as a racer myself, visiting all these mentioned (UK) tracks is what I signed up to do - I have upmost confidence in the MSA and others running the sport, that they make the tracks and immediate environments, as safe as possible. But we can do more, as as technology evolves in the future, I'm sure we will.
Finally, I agree with Ollie on a related point - I think raised/sausage kerbs are the current scourge of UK race circuits!
Should any circuit in the UK have concrete walls as the sole 'barrier' stopping a race car leaving a track at speed. No, of course not. Cars get destroyed, insurance costs rise, and in extreme cases, lives lost. But as others have typed above, the choices currently available in the market are limited, and tyres, gravel traps etc may not be the answer for every corner / unprotected area.
Is Donington safe. IMO, yes, extremely. I would rather insure clients running there then other circuits in the UK, like Oulton or Cadwell, or European circuits like Imola or Zolder.
And as a racer myself, visiting all these mentioned (UK) tracks is what I signed up to do - I have upmost confidence in the MSA and others running the sport, that they make the tracks and immediate environments, as safe as possible. But we can do more, as as technology evolves in the future, I'm sure we will.
Finally, I agree with Ollie on a related point - I think raised/sausage kerbs are the current scourge of UK race circuits!
AndyAlfa18 said:
I think raised/sausage kerbs are the current scourge of UK race circuits!
Genuine question - what would be your solution to the problem of people cutting the chicane at Donington (for example)? We've lost over an hour of track time so far this year already (on just 1 GP track day) where we've had to sweep up gravel from the esses on the Melbourne Loop. I've also had to replace the steering rack on one of our Caterhams where someone cut the chicane on the National circuit and went over the sausage, so I can totally see your point - but don't know what the solution is unfortunately.
Jonny
BaT
Interesting topic.. glad Ryan is ok first and foremost.
I can understand the concerns... it certainly looks to be less 'safe' than it used to be (to be honest, I, like others here, hadn't even noticed the change) - however, I understand the other perspective, in that there are far more 'dangerous' corners on racetracks around the country...
A similar very high speed left hander with short run off can be found at Oulton Park (Island Bend) - people accept that as part of the track layout and hence accept the risks every time they venture out on track (knowingly or not).
I guess the contention here really arises due to the fact that the changes were consciously made (in order to provide better spectating I guess)... had the circuit always been like this, perhaps people wouldn't be so animated about it and would have just accepted it as part of the circuit ?
It's all about minimising risk where possible, and yet how many people do we see on track days without race suits or HANS devices or fire extinguishers or full roll cages ?
I can understand the concerns... it certainly looks to be less 'safe' than it used to be (to be honest, I, like others here, hadn't even noticed the change) - however, I understand the other perspective, in that there are far more 'dangerous' corners on racetracks around the country...
A similar very high speed left hander with short run off can be found at Oulton Park (Island Bend) - people accept that as part of the track layout and hence accept the risks every time they venture out on track (knowingly or not).
I guess the contention here really arises due to the fact that the changes were consciously made (in order to provide better spectating I guess)... had the circuit always been like this, perhaps people wouldn't be so animated about it and would have just accepted it as part of the circuit ?
It's all about minimising risk where possible, and yet how many people do we see on track days without race suits or HANS devices or fire extinguishers or full roll cages ?
Jonny, alas I'm not sure what would be the best solution - you have given both sides to the outcome of wayward drivers trying to either 'cheat' on the line, or being pushed into that line. From my point of view, its cheaper for me if sweeping gravel is the outcome rather than than damage to the cars - I once followed a Clio under the bridge at Snetterton and it launched over the right hand curb in the Esses and so have seen the consequences of just being a foot out on the correct line.
The kerbs at some European tracks are sometimes more pronounced with deeper steps - and they tend to run in the direction of travel of the car - so whilst they are uncomfortable to drive over, they don't launch the car. My issue with sausage kerbs is that many of them in the UK are at right angles to the direction of arrival into the corner (because many protect chicanes as you suggest), and its this element I don't like (although I support the view that corner cutting is cheating).
I also remember the 'gravel' at tracks like Barcelona to be almost like small rocks - serves the purpose of trapping the errant racer and difficult to shift the stones onto the track.
It's difficult, and as this forum has proved, there are lots with opinions.
The kerbs at some European tracks are sometimes more pronounced with deeper steps - and they tend to run in the direction of travel of the car - so whilst they are uncomfortable to drive over, they don't launch the car. My issue with sausage kerbs is that many of them in the UK are at right angles to the direction of arrival into the corner (because many protect chicanes as you suggest), and its this element I don't like (although I support the view that corner cutting is cheating).
I also remember the 'gravel' at tracks like Barcelona to be almost like small rocks - serves the purpose of trapping the errant racer and difficult to shift the stones onto the track.
It's difficult, and as this forum has proved, there are lots with opinions.
jonnyleroux said:
AndyAlfa18 said:
I think raised/sausage kerbs are the current scourge of UK race circuits!
Genuine question - what would be your solution to the problem of people cutting the chicane at Donington (for example)? We've lost over an hour of track time so far this year already (on just 1 GP track day) where we've had to sweep up gravel from the esses on the Melbourne Loop. I've also had to replace the steering rack on one of our Caterhams where someone cut the chicane on the National circuit and went over the sausage, so I can totally see your point - but don't know what the solution is unfortunately.
Jonny
BaT
And before it's said, as everyone will know I hate the no wheels off rule - which of course is only to protect Palmers bloody grass.
I can entirely see most of the different points from both sides of the argument here, and I think we all know it's not black and white.
Reading through it though, I think this is the exact issue many (myself included) would have:
Also, Jonny, with the regards to the bouncing issue, it all depends the direction of impact. With a "glance" (i.e. running at a close angle to the wall) tyres are more likely to send a car back onto across a track due to the way they compress and absorb impact, where a concrete wall will likely just have the car slide along it. With a direct impact (i.e. straight in to the wall) then tyres will likely to a better job of absorbing energy and reducing "bounce", where concrete will certainly bounce the car.
The real difficulty with the wall in question, is that depending on the incident, it could either be a glancing type, or head-on type impact. The one thing I would say though is that it's far enough off the track that I think the risk of a glancing type impact being sent back across the track is very low, so it probably makes sense to have very significant tyre coverage.
Reading through it though, I think this is the exact issue many (myself included) would have:
bdev said:
I guess the contention here really arises due to the fact that the changes were consciously made (in order to provide better spectating I guess)... had the circuit always been like this, perhaps people wouldn't be so animated about it and would have just accepted it as part of the circuit ?
?
I of course don't think this wall is enough of an issue to shut the circuit down, or anything like that, but it is concerning to see a circuit make changes which undoubtedly make the circuit less safe.?
Also, Jonny, with the regards to the bouncing issue, it all depends the direction of impact. With a "glance" (i.e. running at a close angle to the wall) tyres are more likely to send a car back onto across a track due to the way they compress and absorb impact, where a concrete wall will likely just have the car slide along it. With a direct impact (i.e. straight in to the wall) then tyres will likely to a better job of absorbing energy and reducing "bounce", where concrete will certainly bounce the car.
The real difficulty with the wall in question, is that depending on the incident, it could either be a glancing type, or head-on type impact. The one thing I would say though is that it's far enough off the track that I think the risk of a glancing type impact being sent back across the track is very low, so it probably makes sense to have very significant tyre coverage.
I think that wall was moved forward for two reasons (Johnny might have a better understanding) the first was to try and catch cars to stop them carrying on out of control across the exit to the old chicane and the second was to create an inner access road. I think I'm right in saying it was the motorcycle inspectors who while signing off on the change for last year wanted it moved back to where it was for this year, as has happened. I'd guess that along there a glancing blow is more likely in which case a car would dig into the wall and be sent spinning, possibly flinging tyres around with it. Even Ryans impact while seeming direct appears to have a reasonable angle component to it. As said though its all a matter of trade offs. Putting tyres in there would effectively move the wall closer to the track.
jonnyleroux said:
I am not your 'mate'.
Was that aimed at Potatoes, all on Pistonheads, or everybody in the world?TBC id much rather a concrete barrier on the outside of an off camber 100mph bend than any softy rubber tyres, gravel, smooth tarmac or air cushioned bag system. Lets face it makes us all "MEN"
Stating the obvious it's in everyone's interest for driver injuries...especially potentially serious ones...to be low as possible. In my unqualified opinion good design does not always necessarily equal huge expense?
May be highlighting the distance to avoiding a collision or containing an out of control car/motorbike misses the fact that not all run off areas are equal.
In this location, a reasonably steep area of short, well kept, low-friction grass in a basin area that would naturally hold water is not going to do a lot for a car/motorbike travelling well above 100mph.
I think this is supported by accounts of how far the car bounced after hitting the wall.
Armco/concrete walls are obviously not equivalents, the former being designed to dissipate and absorb energy the later being essentially containment and deflection. I presume this is why pit straights are commonly walls with the direction of travel and containment.
I wonder if a large area of grasscrete would at least offer a low maintenance chance for some braking and rubber sliding on a high friction surface before containment. In that section of track there is very little chance of any action for the driver to take, yes I know myself eeek! Grasscrete can even be quite attractive like Paul Ricard, aka Castellet. Craners would be even more striking and an awesome feature visually! Other than that I'd imagine armco could do it's thing of absorbing some energy reducing the energy for bouncing back whilst reducing the driver's impact.
May be highlighting the distance to avoiding a collision or containing an out of control car/motorbike misses the fact that not all run off areas are equal.
In this location, a reasonably steep area of short, well kept, low-friction grass in a basin area that would naturally hold water is not going to do a lot for a car/motorbike travelling well above 100mph.
I think this is supported by accounts of how far the car bounced after hitting the wall.
Armco/concrete walls are obviously not equivalents, the former being designed to dissipate and absorb energy the later being essentially containment and deflection. I presume this is why pit straights are commonly walls with the direction of travel and containment.
I wonder if a large area of grasscrete would at least offer a low maintenance chance for some braking and rubber sliding on a high friction surface before containment. In that section of track there is very little chance of any action for the driver to take, yes I know myself eeek! Grasscrete can even be quite attractive like Paul Ricard, aka Castellet. Craners would be even more striking and an awesome feature visually! Other than that I'd imagine armco could do it's thing of absorbing some energy reducing the energy for bouncing back whilst reducing the driver's impact.
3wheels3 said:
Stating the obvious it's in everyone's interest for driver injuries...especially potentially serious ones...to be low as possible. In my unqualified opinion good design does not always necessarily equal huge expense?
May be highlighting the distance to avoiding a collision or containing an out of control car/motorbike misses the fact that not all run off areas are equal.
In this location, a reasonably steep area of short, well kept, low-friction grass in a basin area that would naturally hold water is not going to do a lot for a car/motorbike travelling well above 100mph.
I think this is supported by accounts of how far the car bounced after hitting the wall.
Armco/concrete walls are obviously not equivalents, the former being designed to dissipate and absorb energy the later being essentially containment and deflection. I presume this is why pit straights are commonly walls with the direction of travel and containment.
I wonder if a large area of grasscrete would at least offer a low maintenance chance for some braking and rubber sliding on a high friction surface before containment. In that section of track there is very little chance of any action for the driver to take, yes I know myself eeek! Grasscrete can even be quite attractive like Paul Ricard, aka Castellet. Craners would be even more striking and an awesome feature visually! Other than that I'd imagine armco could do it's thing of absorbing some energy reducing the energy for bouncing back whilst reducing the driver's impact.
i seem to recall youve had an outing acroiss the grass at craners May be highlighting the distance to avoiding a collision or containing an out of control car/motorbike misses the fact that not all run off areas are equal.
In this location, a reasonably steep area of short, well kept, low-friction grass in a basin area that would naturally hold water is not going to do a lot for a car/motorbike travelling well above 100mph.
I think this is supported by accounts of how far the car bounced after hitting the wall.
Armco/concrete walls are obviously not equivalents, the former being designed to dissipate and absorb energy the later being essentially containment and deflection. I presume this is why pit straights are commonly walls with the direction of travel and containment.
I wonder if a large area of grasscrete would at least offer a low maintenance chance for some braking and rubber sliding on a high friction surface before containment. In that section of track there is very little chance of any action for the driver to take, yes I know myself eeek! Grasscrete can even be quite attractive like Paul Ricard, aka Castellet. Craners would be even more striking and an awesome feature visually! Other than that I'd imagine armco could do it's thing of absorbing some energy reducing the energy for bouncing back whilst reducing the driver's impact.
jonnyleroux said:
Ryan,
I'm confused by your comments about Donington safety though. In what way do you think the circuit should be changed/improved? In my opinion, the run-off at Craners is longer than at *any* point around Oulton, Cadwell, Combe or Goodwood. The fact that you've gone off the right of the track on a left hander is a freak accident but looking to blame Donington is wholly wrong. You also seem to have forgotten that the Donington safety team treated you for over an hour on Tuesday (at everyone elses expense in terms of lost track-time) with no mention whatsoever of the support you received.
It really is not much of a defence to say other tracks are more dangerous but the fact of the matter is the comparable corner at Oulton (Island) has a gravel trap in front of a tyre wall, not a concrete wall.I'm confused by your comments about Donington safety though. In what way do you think the circuit should be changed/improved? In my opinion, the run-off at Craners is longer than at *any* point around Oulton, Cadwell, Combe or Goodwood. The fact that you've gone off the right of the track on a left hander is a freak accident but looking to blame Donington is wholly wrong. You also seem to have forgotten that the Donington safety team treated you for over an hour on Tuesday (at everyone elses expense in terms of lost track-time) with no mention whatsoever of the support you received.
I don't agree it is a freak accident, I have been off at Craners and I have seen many other cars off at Craners, it is a fast off camber bend.
Nobody is blaming Donington, merely contributing to a thread with relevant facts about safety.
I am not sure what the relevance is of the amount of time spent by the safety team.
jonnyleroux said:
Are you suggesting they should have had tyres there? There are policies in place by the MSA to determinte where a circuit should use tyres and where they should use something that does not bounce the vehicle back into the path of oncoming cars.
I can understand your frustration having shunted badly, but it does nothing to help this industry when people make blanket comments about track safety - especially when Donington is statistically one of the safest venues we visit (based on the 15+ years of red flag data we hold at least).
Jonny
BaT
I think Ryan is suggesting that tyres should be there and in my mind it sounds a very sensible suggestion. I hear what you say about bouncing back but I struggle to see a car bouncing that far back towards the circuit and if that were the case, perhaps the wall should be moved.I can understand your frustration having shunted badly, but it does nothing to help this industry when people make blanket comments about track safety - especially when Donington is statistically one of the safest venues we visit (based on the 15+ years of red flag data we hold at least).
Jonny
BaT
I think users of Donington are absolutely entitled to voice their concerns about track safety after all it was drivers who have fought campaigns in motor sport to improve safety often facing great resistance from organisers and race circuit owners. I don't accept your argument that because there are low numbers of red flags at Donington, that implies it is safe.
Ken993 said:
It really is not much of a defence to say other tracks are more dangerous but the fact of the matter is the comparable corner at Oulton (Island) has a gravel trap in front of a tyre wall, not a concrete wall.
That's a great example and one that proves my point perfectly. You're not comparing apples with apples. If you go *straight on* at the craners (as you are suggesting at Island) you actually have around 200+ metres of run-off, across the grass, across the circuit and off the other side at Starkeys. If you have mechanical failure and exit stage *right* at Island (as Ryan did at Craners), you have a grand total of around 10m of grass before you're in the tyres.Ken993 said:
I don't agree it is a freak accident, I have been off at Craners and I have seen many other cars off at Craners, it is a fast off camber bend.
Don't get me wrong, we've seen *hundreds* of cars spin off at Craners, it's a tricky corner, but most of them will be on the grass, or make it to one of the gravel traps (usually Old Hairpin). What i'm saying is it's very unusual to leave the track on the *right* (as opposed to straight on) at a left hand bend.Ken993 said:
I am not sure what the relevance is of the amount of time spent by the safety team.
No relevance to the safety of the circuit itself, it was more a personal gripe that Ryan had neglected to mention it in his initial post - which he later rectified and for which i'm grateful.Ken993 said:
perhaps the wall should be moved.
Should every wall that's ever been hit once be moved? What about spectator enjoyment and safety? The circuits do not survive on the revenue from participants alone unfortunately. I've already mentioned earlier that there are *lots* of very talented and very experienced people (John Symes for one) involved in these decisions every year. These sort of decisions are not taken lightly and by no means taken solely by the bean-counters.Ken993 said:
I don't accept your argument that because there are low numbers of red flags at Donington, that implies it is safe.
I don't think I ever said that. No race circuit is "safe" - it's a dangerous sport. I think I said that if you wanted to reduce injuries in UK motorsport you would focus your efforts and funding elsewhere on a results-to-expense basis. I think a few people on here should probably be taking up golf ;-)We're going round in circles here and I'm hoping this will be my last post on the topic (i'm weak) - suffice to say no-one is trying to cover anything up, brush anything under the carpet or belittle the shunt that Ryan has had. I encourage active discussion about track day incidents on forums as it helps highlight potentially common accidents and gives us data which is crucial in moving safety forwards. However, I will not tolerate comments about "poor track safety" at Donington Park when, relative to the other venues in the UK, it is absolutely at the top of its game.
Jonny
BaT
jonnyleroux said:
Genuine question - what would be your solution to the problem of people cutting the chicane at Donington (for example)? We've lost over an hour of track time so far this year already (on just 1 GP track day) where we've had to sweep up gravel from the esses on the Melbourne Loop.
I've also had to replace the steering rack on one of our Caterhams where someone cut the chicane on the National circuit and went over the sausage, so I can totally see your point - but don't know what the solution is unfortunately.
What do they do at Paul Ricard, with that special tarmac that slows you down (the blue and the red runoff areas)?I've also had to replace the steering rack on one of our Caterhams where someone cut the chicane on the National circuit and went over the sausage, so I can totally see your point - but don't know what the solution is unfortunately.
Do BaT and the other TDO's allow timing these days?
Seems from the other YT clips posted by the (ex) Elise driver that he is claiming a record lap whilst on a TD
Quite how you claim a LR using a random point on the circuit is a bit beyond me - traditionally the start/finish line is the datum.
Seems from the other YT clips posted by the (ex) Elise driver that he is claiming a record lap whilst on a TD
Quite how you claim a LR using a random point on the circuit is a bit beyond me - traditionally the start/finish line is the datum.
Gassing Station | UK Club Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff