RE: Temporary speed limits at the Nurburgring
Discussion
philshaq said:
Surely just move the spectators? Cars crash all the time, it sounds like an unavoidable situation in the first instance but could easily be avoided by not having people watching from there.
I would agree with this move them and or build a much higher safety fence to stop flying GT cars and for next year have a new aero rule for certain cars at this track.A speed limited section in a motor race is absurd.
BSC said:
The driver has the obligation to adapt the speed to the track. Everything else is BS.
It's a competitive sport and the driver's job is to drive the car as quickly as possible. For those of us who don't live in the 1950's the risk/reward trade off should be speed against written off cars and damaged barriers wherever possible, not dead drivers and spectators.The Wookie said:
BSC said:
The driver has the obligation to adapt the speed to the track. Everything else is BS.
It's a competitive sport and the driver's job is to drive the car as quickly as possible. For those of us who don't live in the 1950's the risk/reward trade off should be speed against written off cars and damaged barriers wherever possible, not dead drivers and spectators.
) Slow down. Slick surface because oil or antifreeze has been dumped. Slow.... you get the idea.A crest or some other feature in a track? Slow down.
What happened to Jan Mardenborough and the poor old spectator was just a terrible tragedy+mix of flat bottomed car+speed+poor circuit safety for the spectator. The learning to take from it is straightfowrward and being clouded in knee jerk reaction. Spectators - put at less risk, place further back/elevate etc. Drivers - slow down for the crest. Because it is the 'Ring with its fearsome previous reputation it has added a whole emotive element.
Slowing cars down is just BS. It is the analogue input from the driver that is most important element here.
What you're basically advocating is that drivers take half the track at 8 or 9 tenths because the circuit is Inherently dangerous. There are a multitude of aspects that could cause a car to lift off on one lap where it didn't for the last 50, not just wind but tyre and track condition resulting in a better run off the previous corner, buffet or slipstream from another car, even things like damper temperature and fuel load
It's JM's job and livelihood to drive that car as fast as possible and it is outright unfair to ask any driver in that situation to balance their career and getting hurt so directly.
Personally I won't race there anyway as I think it's dangerous but then racing isn't my only career and I'm lucky enough to be able to pick and choose the risks I take.
We all take risks in motorsport, all that I ask as a driver is that they're minimised as much as is practically possible and unlike many of issues at the Ring, that particular safety issue is fixable by reprofiling the corner.
It's JM's job and livelihood to drive that car as fast as possible and it is outright unfair to ask any driver in that situation to balance their career and getting hurt so directly.
Personally I won't race there anyway as I think it's dangerous but then racing isn't my only career and I'm lucky enough to be able to pick and choose the risks I take.
We all take risks in motorsport, all that I ask as a driver is that they're minimised as much as is practically possible and unlike many of issues at the Ring, that particular safety issue is fixable by reprofiling the corner.
The issue is just as much cars taking off as whether there are spectators in the way or not. Changes to the cars/ racing regulations are the most likely solution, however I can imagine arranging this within the couple of weeks between the crash and the 6 hours race is a bit problematic.
Restrict speed in problem areas on a temporary basis and remove once the issues with the cars are solved. No one wants speed restricted racing - spectators, drivers or organisers but if its a practical short term solution then so be it. No different really than running with a section under double waved yellows for a prolonged period.
Restrict speed in problem areas on a temporary basis and remove once the issues with the cars are solved. No one wants speed restricted racing - spectators, drivers or organisers but if its a practical short term solution then so be it. No different really than running with a section under double waved yellows for a prolonged period.
Ian974 has hit the nail on the head. This is temporary measure to allow racing to continue whilst a better long term solution is agreed by all involved - authorities, owners, drivers, etc.
The Ring is an awesome place to drive and to spectate and I do not want that to change, but risks can be minimised. At the end of the day it is a bloody long track and the sections that have been slowed will almost certainly pail into insignificance once the double yellow 60 zones are deployed for all the on track incidents.
The Ring is an awesome place to drive and to spectate and I do not want that to change, but risks can be minimised. At the end of the day it is a bloody long track and the sections that have been slowed will almost certainly pail into insignificance once the double yellow 60 zones are deployed for all the on track incidents.
FWDRacer said:
Original poster has hit the nail on the head. Compromising rain. Slow Down. Compromising winds (Fernando ) Slow down. Slick surface because oil or antifreeze has been dumped. Slow.... you get the idea.
) Slow down. Slick surface because oil or antifreeze has been dumped. Slow.... you get the idea.Hit the nail on the head with that one. I think Jann Mardenborough is an awesome guy and driver, and I feel for him at this time, but I can't imagine re-profiling Cadwell's mountain, for instance.
If in doubt, remove 2 wheels and just go faster. Anyway it's my birthday this weekend and I'm off to go race bikes at Cadwell.
djstevec said:
Mermaid said:
supertouring said:
djstevec said:
Never been to the 'Ring, but how hard would it be to re-profile that section of track to lose the crest?
How very dare you! Out of curiosity, how many other marques get airborne at Flugplatz?
Porsche at LM, and its a section of tarmac that you barely notice, did that ever get reprofiled or did the team go back to the drawing board?
The Wookie said:
Kawasicki said:
Sorry, I thought that was the whole point of motorsport.
I thought it was about driving cars as fast as possible. I didn't think dying for sport had been considered part of the spectacle for at least 3 decades.If there is no risk to the driver then it is missing a large part of what makes motorsport interesting, in my opinion.
Kawasicki said:
No, normal racing is not about driving cars as fast as possible. It's about driving as car as fast as it will go considering the conditions, it takes skill. Skill to decide how much risk to take, not just skill to point the car in the right direction, brake and accelerate at the correct time.
If there is no risk to the driver then it is missing a large part of what makes motorsport interesting, in my opinion.
You're a dynamics engineer, you should know that getting the most out a car is about feel and the skill is in using that feel to make the judgement of where to point the car, where to brake and where to accelerate. It isn't trial and error. I question the driver's ability to feel the onset of such a behaviour to the point of being able to push the limit while leaving a bit of margin for variance of wind and vehicle behaviour (I.e. demonstrating skill). Even if he/she can feel the onset then, knowing what the consequences will be if it lifts, pushing that limit would be a stupid risk by anyone's standards. Basically either no skill or stupidity and there are too many stupid racing drivers about to start rewarding them for it.If there is no risk to the driver then it is missing a large part of what makes motorsport interesting, in my opinion.
The risk should be the shunt itself, not the consequences of the shunt. That's what safety should be about in motorsport.
Personally I just don't see the point of risking life for the novelty of some cars getting a bit of air over a bump. The only two practical ways I can see to solve it are to reprofile the bump or ban any cars that are fast enough and have aero properties which mean the car stays aloft if it leaves the ground.
The Wookie said:
Personally I just don't see the point of risking life for the novelty of some cars getting a bit of air over a bump. The only two practical ways I can see to solve it are to reprofile the bump or ban any cars that are fast enough and have aero properties which mean the car stays aloft if it leaves the ground.
Wouldnt say its a novelty. Its just part of the track. Like eau rouge at Spa and the barriers at Monaco. You might as well remove any slightly dangerous part of every track for the fear of risking life. Infact just ban all 'traditional' tracks and have every motorsport event at a Tilke drome where the spectator needs a telescope to see the cars. Like you say I think its more down to a problem with the car. Its not as if every racing car to have raced there has uncontrollably taken off.
If we go down the route of changing corners at the Nordschleife then no track is safe from sanitisation. Oh wait...
thiscocks said:
Wouldnt say its a novelty. Its just part of the track. Like eau rouge at Spa and the barriers at Monaco. You might as well remove any slightly dangerous part of every track for the fear of risking life. Infact just ban all 'traditional' tracks and have every motorsport event at a Tilke drome where the spectator needs a telescope to see the cars.
Like you say I think its more down to a problem with the car. Its not as if every racing car to have raced there has uncontrollably taken off.
If we go down the route of changing corners at the Nordschleife then no track is safe from sanitisation. Oh wait...
Thing is it's not black and white of what's dangerous and not, and that's what has IMHO spoiled a lot of tracks and given us a load of Tarmac lakes with white lines painted on them to avoid the chance of hitting anything at all rather than keeping the risk and just making the barriers safe for even big impacts.Like you say I think its more down to a problem with the car. Its not as if every racing car to have raced there has uncontrollably taken off.
If we go down the route of changing corners at the Nordschleife then no track is safe from sanitisation. Oh wait...
Like I said before, I'm not saying remove the opportunity to crash, i'm saying remove the major dangers. Personally I'd rather sacrifice a few dodgy features like that and see faster kit running round the ring rather than keep limiting the cars that are allowed to race there. It'll become an anachronism only open to the bottom end of motorsport.
Car progress is already restricted but progress is inevitable and I think cars taking off there like that will happen more as cars get faster and aero on certain types of car becomes more refined. It might be the first major occurrence but there are plenty of examples of corners that haven't been a problem until a certain point then a spate of crashes happen because the cars have reached a speed or G that they wouldn't have done previously. If there's a panacea for that sort of accident that will work regardless of pace (like the aero restrictions on LMP cars) then maybe that's another solution.
The Wookie said:
Thing is it's not black and white of what's dangerous and not, and that's what has IMHO spoiled a lot of tracks and given us a load of Tarmac lakes with white lines painted on them to avoid the chance of hitting anything at all rather than keeping the risk and just making the barriers safe for even big impacts.
Like I said before, I'm not saying remove the opportunity to crash, i'm saying remove the major dangers. Personally I'd rather sacrifice a few dodgy features like that and see faster kit running round the ring rather than keep limiting the cars that are allowed to race there. It'll become an anachronism only open to the bottom end of motorsport.
Car progress is already restricted but progress is inevitable and I think cars taking off there like that will happen more as cars get faster and aero on certain types of car becomes more refined. It might be the first major occurrence but there are plenty of examples of corners that haven't been a problem until a certain point then a spate of crashes happen because the cars have reached a speed or G that they wouldn't have done previously. If there's a panacea for that sort of accident that will work regardless of pace (like the aero restrictions on LMP cars) then maybe that's another solution.
It's it already an anachronism of sorts? F1 cars would race there otherwise, no?Like I said before, I'm not saying remove the opportunity to crash, i'm saying remove the major dangers. Personally I'd rather sacrifice a few dodgy features like that and see faster kit running round the ring rather than keep limiting the cars that are allowed to race there. It'll become an anachronism only open to the bottom end of motorsport.
Car progress is already restricted but progress is inevitable and I think cars taking off there like that will happen more as cars get faster and aero on certain types of car becomes more refined. It might be the first major occurrence but there are plenty of examples of corners that haven't been a problem until a certain point then a spate of crashes happen because the cars have reached a speed or G that they wouldn't have done previously. If there's a panacea for that sort of accident that will work regardless of pace (like the aero restrictions on LMP cars) then maybe that's another solution.
Would temporarily banning flat-bottomed cars help eliminate circumstances like these - at least until aero engineers can find a way of drastically reducing underbody lift in these circumstances?
The Wookie said:
Personally I just don't see the point of risking life for the novelty of some cars getting a bit of air over a bump.
Most motorsport (which being a sport is a novelty) increases the risk of dying. Do you see the point in motorsport, rugby, boxing?No one is forced to race at the 'Ring. No one is forced to spectate there either. It's a dangerous place, if people are not comfortable with that they should not visit.
Kawasicki said:
Most motorsport (which being a sport is a novelty) increases the risk of dying. Do you see the point in motorsport, rugby, boxing?
No one is forced to race at the 'Ring. No one is forced to spectate there either. It's a dangerous place, if people are not comfortable with that they should not visit.
I strongly agree with that. I have had one Ring crash, early in my visits, and it was my own fault, as it usually is. Lots of car damage, lots of ego readjustment.No one is forced to race at the 'Ring. No one is forced to spectate there either. It's a dangerous place, if people are not comfortable with that they should not visit.
Yet, I go back,and will again this year. I am aware that it is a place to be respected and to drive within my own limits. It is an indispensable link to a time when you could take personal responsibility for your actions without endless regulations and limits. It is part of the DNA of the place. The remedy for foolishness and overdriving will be delivered by the track in short order.
There is indeed some danger, but it is not in any way a suicidal place. I am very comfortable that there might need to be some restriction on spectators in limited areas, but would hate to see the place destroyed with any rules.
Kawasicki said:
Most motorsport (which being a sport is a novelty) increases the risk of dying. Do you see the point in motorsport, rugby, boxing?
No one is forced to race at the 'Ring. No one is forced to spectate there either. It's a dangerous place, if people are not comfortable with that they should not visit.
You're talking in black and white, Motorsport will always be dangerous to a greater or lesser extent, I'm saying the unnecessary risks should be dealt with and I see that corner as an unnecessary risk with the cars that currently run on it.No one is forced to race at the 'Ring. No one is forced to spectate there either. It's a dangerous place, if people are not comfortable with that they should not visit.
Again, rugby is about getting a ball over a line within a set of rules, not the risk of crippling yourself. As the guys get fitter and stronger it's caused a problem with concussion and instead of ignoring it and saying 'getting hit round the head is part of the sport' they're reducing the risk by fitting the players up with accelerometers and taking players off that have had big hits rather than let them continue and take more.
Boxing is about as old fashioned as you can get but you still don't see anyone campaigning that they take the gloves and gumshields away because they want to see teeth getting knocked out like the old days.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff