3D model recreation of Grojean's crash
Discussion
vulture1 said:
toasty said:
It does look like he'd have been decapitated without the halo.
I've never liked them but thankful now.
Was it John Surtees son Henry and the Massa spring incident that were the reason for Halo coming about?I've never liked them but thankful now.
exelero said:
Did he know about Hamilton back in 2012 or not? I’m not sure about that one. Yes I also think it was a genuine racing incident in Bahrain, but the moves are very similar to be fair
Hard to tell. The reason I think they remain very different is how they came about. At Spa, he came across the track clearly trying to defend the inside line (which suggests he knew Lewis was there). Whereas at Bahrain he was trying to avoid an unfolding incident ahead. The contact is similar i agree, but the reason behind it is totally different.Always interesting to see the different takes on incidents and shows what a hard job the stewards must have!
thegreenhell said:
Good to see him out testing Indycars this week. You can see the scaring on his hands as he puts his helmet on.
I was never a fan of his, I thought he was a bit of a liability in fact, but it amazing how one incident can totally change your opinion of someone. They way he his dealt with this, and the aftermath is incredible. Balls of steel. Balls. Of. Steel.I had a similar change of opinion with Massa after he ‘lost’ the 2008 championship, the dignity he took that with was truly humbling.
Megaflow said:
thegreenhell said:
Good to see him out testing Indycars this week. You can see the scaring on his hands as he puts his helmet on.
I was never a fan of his, I thought he was a bit of a liability in fact, but it amazing how one incident can totally change your opinion of someone. They way he his dealt with this, and the aftermath is incredible. Balls of steel. Balls. Of. Steel.I had a similar change of opinion with Massa after he ‘lost’ the 2008 championship, the dignity he took that with was truly humbling.
To be honest seeing him talking about no wanting to do ovals because of possible crashes - i suspect he wont be in racing much longer.
rider73 said:
personally i havnt - RG has been a liability in F1 since his arrival - i think if it wasnt him in the barrier he'd have put someone else there but he never accepted any responsibility for anything - so its very ironic for him to talk about "seeing his family again got him out of the crash" when he was quite willing to risk others with his gung-ho attitude on the track...
To be honest seeing him talking about no wanting to do ovals because of possible crashes - i suspect he wont be in racing much longer.
Senna was like that too, happy to risk himself and others with a gung ho attitude in the car, but at the same time showing serious concern for the safety of other races like Comas after his crash, and the time he spent with Dr Watkins quizzing him about his techniques.To be honest seeing him talking about no wanting to do ovals because of possible crashes - i suspect he wont be in racing much longer.
That's probably the only thing these two drivers have in common, mind
rider73 said:
i suspect he wont be in racing much longer.
I suspect he may prove you wrong. He is only 34.Grosjean should do well in IndyCar once he has the mileage. He has shone in every spec series he raced in.
He is also young enough to head into WEC and have a long and successful latter career there should he choose to. He has experience at the Le Mans. With the influx of top manufacturers thanks to the new hyper-car regulations, I fully expect to see him in there at some stage in the near future. He could well dovetail WEC and IndyCar like many current drivers do.
kiseca said:
rider73 said:
personally i havnt - RG has been a liability in F1 since his arrival - i think if it wasnt him in the barrier he'd have put someone else there but he never accepted any responsibility for anything - so its very ironic for him to talk about "seeing his family again got him out of the crash" when he was quite willing to risk others with his gung-ho attitude on the track...
To be honest seeing him talking about no wanting to do ovals because of possible crashes - i suspect he wont be in racing much longer.
Senna was like that too, happy to risk himself and others with a gung ho attitude in the car, but at the same time showing serious concern for the safety of other races like Comas after his crash, and the time he spent with Dr Watkins quizzing him about his techniques.To be honest seeing him talking about no wanting to do ovals because of possible crashes - i suspect he wont be in racing much longer.
That's probably the only thing these two drivers have in common, mind
I wouldnt say Senna had a gung-ho attitude, apart from his Prost clash, but that really was personal - IIRC i dont remember Senna putting anyones life at risk,,,,especially weaving around at the start, moving over in the breaking zones etc etc
happy to be corrected though
TwentyFive said:
rider73 said:
i suspect he wont be in racing much longer.
I suspect he may prove you wrong. He is only 34.Grosjean should do well in IndyCar once he has the mileage. He has shone in every spec series he raced in.
He is also young enough to head into WEC and have a long and successful latter career there should he choose to. He has experience at the Le Mans. With the influx of top manufacturers thanks to the new hyper-car regulations, I fully expect to see him in there at some stage in the near future. He could well dovetail WEC and IndyCar like many current drivers do.
rider73 said:
i was referring to his mental outlook - if he starts basing career decisions on if he think he'd survive a crash in it, then its a slippery slope.
I think you have missed what Grosjean was getting at. He isn't the first driver to opt out of racing on ovals in IndyCar. Chilton and Conway also spring to mind. Conway had a massive crash at Indianapolis in 2010 and it scared him. Nothing wrong with that, but he remains a top driver in WEC and has blown everyone away on pace at Le Mans for a good few years. Hardly a slippery slope?They are self-preservation decisions based on a bad experience. It doesn't mean they will be any slower when racing on road courses or other disciplines as Conway is regularly proving.
Lauda parked his car at Fuji '76 because of what had happened to him earlier in the year. He won two world titles after that.
These decisions should be respected, not seen as a cop out. I hold drivers like these in higher regard for putting their hand up and saying its not for them. That's a brave thing to do.
rider73 said:
Senna and Comas had history - i think Comas had helped/saved Senna in previous disciplines in crashes, F3 i think...
I wouldnt say Senna had a gung-ho attitude, apart from his Prost clash, but that really was personal - IIRC i dont remember Senna putting anyones life at risk,,,,especially weaving around at the start, moving over in the breaking zones etc etc
happy to be corrected though
He had a long history of giving other drivers the choice of crash or get out of his way. Parked his F3 car on top of Brundle's, had a couple of run-ins with Mansell while at Lotus, one of which led to a pit garage altercation between the two, squeezed Prost against the wall at Portugal, I think it was..... wiped out into Brundle in Australia 1989 while going flat out with a comfortable lead in very wet conditions, spun on a fair few occasions just pushing the limits.. I remember him parking a McLaren upside down in a sand trap, spinning off in the wet, his 1988 collision at Monza which you could say was 50/50 with the backmarker but he didn't give any room for it to go wrong, his all-my-own-work crash at Monaco.I wouldnt say Senna had a gung-ho attitude, apart from his Prost clash, but that really was personal - IIRC i dont remember Senna putting anyones life at risk,,,,especially weaving around at the start, moving over in the breaking zones etc etc
happy to be corrected though
Prost expressed concern that he wasn't ready to die in a racecar, prompted by the situations Ayrton would put him in (not just Japan 1990). He also says that when Ayrton was miles ahead, Prost would just drive as fast as he can because if he was troubling Ayrton's lap pace, Senna would respond, speed up, and could be influenced into taking risks and making an error. Brundle backs up the viewpoint that if someone was ahead of Senna, the Brazilian would do whatever he could to get back past, even if it risked crashing.
His famous quote to Jackie Stewart "If you don't go for the gap, you are no longer a racing driver.." was prompted by Stewart asking him why he's involved in more on track contacts than any other champion in history. Whether or not that would be factually correct I do not know, but it is an accurate reflection on Senna's reputation at the time.
Even if you only take Japan 1990 as an only example, Ayrton purposefully caused an accident at over 120mph with a full grid on full fuel tanks right behind them. Grosjean has never done anything like that.
Senna was one of the greats, but he moved the bar for aggressive, win-at-all-costs driving in his career. He was as gung-ho as it got IMO
As for Senna and Comas, I don't know if they had prior history but I recall there was speculation at Imola that Comas joined the circuit under red flag to try help Senna, but I believe it turned out it was just a misunderstanding in the pitlane.
Edited by kiseca on Friday 26th February 13:15
If you didn't actually live through that era (I'm old enough to remember F1 in the 1980s, not sure if that's a good or a bad thing ) there are two sources that look at the Senna and Prost rivalry in some detail.
One is the movie Senna, which is, by the producers' admission, biased towards Senna and has been directed to make Prost look like the antagonist. It skews the story in Ayrtons favour and does leave out a lot of detail and history that led to the animosity between the two.
The other is Malcolm Folley's book, Senna Vs Prost. The book is mostly based on interviews with Brundle, John Hogan, John Watson, Jo Ramirez, Ron Dennis, and Prost himself. And I'd say the majority of the backstory comes from Prost.The book paints an image that's closer to my memory of the time than the movie does, so to me it feels more impartial, but I would still think it would think it fair to argue that, with it being to a great extent Prost's viewpoint, it will be biased towards him and if Senna was around to do so I'd think he'd have a fair few counterpoints to add.
Still, lots of good insight in both of those sources.
) there are two sources that look at the Senna and Prost rivalry in some detail.One is the movie Senna, which is, by the producers' admission, biased towards Senna and has been directed to make Prost look like the antagonist. It skews the story in Ayrtons favour and does leave out a lot of detail and history that led to the animosity between the two.
The other is Malcolm Folley's book, Senna Vs Prost. The book is mostly based on interviews with Brundle, John Hogan, John Watson, Jo Ramirez, Ron Dennis, and Prost himself. And I'd say the majority of the backstory comes from Prost.The book paints an image that's closer to my memory of the time than the movie does, so to me it feels more impartial, but I would still think it would think it fair to argue that, with it being to a great extent Prost's viewpoint, it will be biased towards him and if Senna was around to do so I'd think he'd have a fair few counterpoints to add.
Still, lots of good insight in both of those sources.
rdjohn said:
While we marvel at the aero and PUs in F1, the survival of Grosjean in this accident, where a plastic car was driven through a metal barrier is, perhaps, the most extraordinary feat of engineering.
‘Plastic’ isn’t an accurate way to describe them, but nevertheless the combination of many safety systems contributed to a very impressive survival. Still an element of luck involved as any further obstruction for RG getting out, the fire fighting measures would not have been sufficient and RG would be dead.The percentage chances of something so similar happening are so slim, what will be more impressive is the measures that that will likely be put in place to improve already extensive safety measures.
KR158 said:
sgtBerbatov said:
TheDeuce said:
I think at that point most of the energy had transferred to the process of 'post c' slicing the car in half and the back end spinning off. Also, this recreation can only be so accurate, it may well have been the roll hoop that hit the upper section of barrier and took the load, not the camera.
Although endless times we have seen cars flip and that camera unit remain in place and in tact so I guess it's pretty strong!
I think the camera went beyond how strong it was, and what actually remains is the roll hoopAlthough endless times we have seen cars flip and that camera unit remain in place and in tact so I guess it's pretty strong!
I can't remember the driver, but I'm sure in another less ferocious crash this actually failed on them but didn't lead to injuries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWyDHcmaa6U
Here's a better Pic of the Damage.
https://de.motorsport.com/f1/photos/pedro-diniz-sa...
Edited by KR158 on Thursday 10th December 18:58
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff