Massive F2 Crash Eau Rouge

[Fundoreen]

More than fed up hearing about eau rouge. It probably compromises car setup for the rest of the track planning for it. Or else they dont bother and suffer a dangerous car through that section.
More of a big balls brag for drivers really. You cant all sit there watching and it doesn't look that great on tv after a few laps .
Noticed nobody went in there side by side this race. Nobody probably will again either for many years.
Just fill it in with concrete and put a chicane there.

[freedman]

skwdenyer said:

Re other circuits, where else do drivers come over a blind crested turn flat out without masses of run off? I’m not sure I can think of any.

I wonder if F1 downforce would allow avoiding action even when light over crest? Those F2 cara looked like they had little or no scope for major additional directional change.

There’s also the question of whether Halo meant what little reaction time might previously have existed was wiped out by loss of visibility.

There are circumstances, that are effectively unavoidable

IMO this was one of them

Car loses it at Radillion, Hubert spins to the right in avoidance, but is collected by another car at full speed as the car bounces back off the barrier.

There was no possibility for Correa to avoid him, from what I've seen. It's only a guess, but I imagine he jinked right immediately he saw there was an incident ahead (maybe avoiding another car??) unfortunately we know the outcome after that

The only way to avoid a similar incident again is to butcher Spa into something unrecognisable.

I mentioned earlier fatalities at that corner are not frequent, and whilst one is too many, the risk is inherent with the sport.

[red_slr]

freedman said:

I mentioned earlier fatalities at that corner are not frequent, and whilst one is too many, the risk is inherent with the sport.

Don't forget Eau Rouge and Raidillon are basically the same part of the track. Of the last 10 deaths 5 has been in that section of track.

[shirt]

Fundoreen said:

More than fed up hearing about eau rouge. It probably compromises car setup for the rest of the track planning for it. Or else they dont bother and suffer a dangerous car through that section.
More of a big balls brag for drivers really. You cant all sit there watching and it doesn't look that great on tv after a few laps .
Noticed nobody went in there side by side this race. Nobody probably will again either for many years.
Just fill it in with concrete and put a chicane there.

Willing to bet you’ve never driven on track, let alone raced.

All cars have limits. You don’t have a ‘dangerous’ car, you have limits of performance and drive accordingly. How many cars have driven through Eau rouge this year vs no. Crashes? It’s insignificant.

For racers of all types of car, spa is still very much a top drawer circuit. Not just for one corner, but that corner is part of the attraction. The exit speed dictates whether you’re going to pass or be passed at the end of kemmel. Watch the 24H spa (preferably last years, this year’s rained for most of it) and watch how much overtaking is dominated by that section of track.

For f1 it’s a flat easy corner now but I reckon still feels fantastic for the guy at the wheel.

Edited by shirt on Monday 2nd September 22:27

[usn90]

Very interesting point regarding the halo potentially limiting visibility, something I never thought of!

[Eric Mc]

red_slr said:

Don't forget Eau Rouge and Raidillon are basically the same part of the track. Of the last 10 deaths 5 has been in that section of track.

So, are you suggesting that they change Eau Rouge permanently - and destroy the one unique feature of the circuit?

[skwdenyer]

freedman said:

skwdenyer said:

Re other circuits, where else do drivers come over a blind crested turn flat out without masses of run off? I’m not sure I can think of any.

I wonder if F1 downforce would allow avoiding action even when light over crest? Those F2 cara looked like they had little or no scope for major additional directional change.

There’s also the question of whether Halo meant what little reaction time might previously have existed was wiped out by loss of visibility.

There are circumstances, that are effectively unavoidable

IMO this was one of them

Car loses it at Radillion, Hubert spins to the right in avoidance, but is collected by another car at full speed as the car bounces back off the barrier.

There was no possibility for Correa to avoid him, from what I've seen. It's only a guess, but I imagine he jinked right immediately he saw there was an incident ahead (maybe avoiding another car??) unfortunately we know the outcome after that

The only way to avoid a similar incident again is to butcher Spa into something unrecognisable.

I mentioned earlier fatalities at that corner are not frequent, and whilst one is too many, the risk is inherent with the sport.

Agreed on all points, save one. There's no need to change the track in order to install barriers that "catch" the car. If the ground slopes away behind the current barriers, it is hardly beyond the wit of engineering man to install in effect a "raised deck" to accommodate the extra depth of such a barrier. The track itself would be unchanged.

[freedman]

red_slr said:

Don't forget Eau Rouge and Raidillon are basically the same part of the track. Of the last 10 deaths 5 has been in that section of track.

You're making it sound like there's a fatality every week

Last at Spa was 6 years ago, previous 4 wheel death at that section was well into last century.

There have also 'only been 4 deaths in that section, ever (4 wheels)

I'm not saying any of this lightly, but it's no more dangerous than any other fast challenging section of track on any circuit

[sgtBerbatov]

freedman said:

red_slr said:

Don't forget Eau Rouge and Raidillon are basically the same part of the track. Of the last 10 deaths 5 has been in that section of track.

You're making it sound like there's a fatality every week

Last at Spa was 6 years ago, previous 4 wheel death at that section was well into last century.

There have also 'only been 4 deaths in that section, ever (4 wheels)

I'm not saying any of this lightly, but it's no more dangerous than any other fast challenging section of track on any circuit

And to be fair there are sections of public roads that have more fatalities in a year than that part has had in it's own history, yet the public roads are used every day.

[RobM77]

shirt said:

Fundoreen said:

More than fed up hearing about eau rouge. It probably compromises car setup for the rest of the track planning for it. Or else they dont bother and suffer a dangerous car through that section.
More of a big balls brag for drivers really. You cant all sit there watching and it doesn't look that great on tv after a few laps .
Noticed nobody went in there side by side this race. Nobody probably will again either for many years.
Just fill it in with concrete and put a chicane there.

Willing to bet you’ve never driven on track, let alone raced.

All cars have limits. You don’t have a ‘dangerous’ car, you have limits of performance and drive accordingly. How many cars have driven through Eau rouge this year vs no. Crashes? It’s insignificant.

For racers of all types of car, spa is still very much a top drawer circuit. Not just for one corner, but that corner is part of the attraction. The exit speed dictates whether you’re going to pass or be passed at the end of kemmel. Watch the 24H spa (preferably last years, this year’s rained for most of it) and watch how much overtaking is dominated by that section of track.

For f1 it’s a flat easy corner now but I reckon still feels fantastic for the guy at the wheel.

Edited by shirt on Monday 2nd September 22:27

I had some coaching from a former GP2 driver and he said that Eau Rouge was easily flat in FR, GP3 and GP2, so I doubt that setup is compromised for it. Pouhon is more of a key corner in that regard.

As for the predicament with historic circuits, I'm not sure I have an answer, even as someone who's raced for 18 years, including many in single seaters. I would still race there though, in fact it's one of my ambitions to do so.

[TIGA84]

Fundoreen said:

More than fed up hearing about eau rouge. It probably compromises car setup for the rest of the track planning for it. Or else they dont bother and suffer a dangerous car through that section.
More of a big balls brag for drivers really. You cant all sit there watching and it doesn't look that great on tv after a few laps .
Noticed nobody went in there side by side this race. Nobody probably will again either for many years.
Just fill it in with concrete and put a chicane there.

I really don't think this site is for you. Neither do I think any form of Motorsport is.

Moronic speculation on setup that you clearly have less than zero knowledge of.

Should we concrete Paddock at Brands as well? or the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca? Actually lets put a chicane in at 130R as well after all, they're just a "big balls brag" for drivers and look boring after a couple of laps.

Motor Racing is dangerous, you can't mitigate against everything.

Stay in your bedroom.

[skwdenyer]

freedman said:

red_slr said:

Don't forget Eau Rouge and Raidillon are basically the same part of the track. Of the last 10 deaths 5 has been in that section of track.

You're making it sound like there's a fatality every week

Last at Spa was 6 years ago, previous 4 wheel death at that section was well into last century.

There have also 'only been 4 deaths in that section, ever (4 wheels)

I'm not saying any of this lightly, but it's no more dangerous than any other fast challenging section of track on any circuit

In this modern litigious era, if there has been a death it is fairly hard not to at the very least seriously consider making changes to prevent another one at the same place in the same circumstances - otherwise if there *is* another one there in that manner there will most likely be legal hell to pay.

Most people - and, it seems, the Courts - understand that motorsport is dangerous, and you simply cannot mitigate against every possibility. But once a death has happened it is no longer a part of the "every possibility" segment, and is instead in the "proven mortal risk" segment which is rather different.

[hunter 66]

After racing for 30 years , won at Spa outright in a GT2 , all it is ,is luck sometimes as things happen fast and unplanned , sometimes you miss a big accident by inches , sometimes you do not , but chance of injury now is massively improved but will always be there , it is just luck when things happen

[RDMcG]

hunter 66 said:

After racing for 30 years , won at Spa outright in a GT2 , all it is ,is luck sometimes as things happen fast and unplanned , sometimes you miss a big accident by inches , sometimes you do not , but chance of injury now is massively improved but will always be there , it is just luck when things happen

Agree 100%

[RobM77]

RDMcG said:

hunter 66 said:

After racing for 30 years , won at Spa outright in a GT2 , all it is ,is luck sometimes as things happen fast and unplanned , sometimes you miss a big accident by inches , sometimes you do not , but chance of injury now is massively improved but will always be there , it is just luck when things happen

Agree 100%

I worry a lot of about the risks of motorsport, especially when I was racing single seaters, but ultimately yes, it's just chance. Motorsport is inherently very dangerous, and whilst I like to see everything possible done to mitigate that risk, both for me, the car and the circuit, that risk will always be there to some degree.

[coppice]

skwdenyer said:

In this modern litigious era, if there has been a death it is fairly hard not to at the very least seriously consider making changes to prevent another one at the same place in the same circumstances - otherwise if there *is* another one there in that manner there will most likely be legal hell to pay.

Most people - and, it seems, the Courts - understand that motorsport is dangerous, and you simply cannot mitigate against every possibility. But once a death has happened it is no longer a part of the "every possibility" segment, and is instead in the "proven mortal risk" segment which is rather different.

Don't be daft- Spa has many high speed corners, just like Silverstone. The risk is self evident, and obvious to all who participate and whilst lessons can be learned from some crashes I have no idea whether that's the case here . We'd sure have an odd looking Iom TT course if every casualty effected circuit change .

The only reason this poor lad's death is subject to any 'conversation' at all is because he died on live TV . If it had been a bloke racing an old F3 car in a historic event it wouldn't get an inch coverage .

[TobyTR]

Precisely where the t-bone happened, 15 years ago it was all gravel trap...

If that tarmac run-off area was still gravel trap now, would it have had a different outcome - ie Hubert's car not bouncing as far back onto the track and the other car being slowed sufficiently enough? In the pursuit of going forwards with safety, have the FIA gone backwards?

[skwdenyer]

coppice said:

skwdenyer said:

In this modern litigious era, if there has been a death it is fairly hard not to at the very least seriously consider making changes to prevent another one at the same place in the same circumstances - otherwise if there *is* another one there in that manner there will most likely be legal hell to pay.

Most people - and, it seems, the Courts - understand that motorsport is dangerous, and you simply cannot mitigate against every possibility. But once a death has happened it is no longer a part of the "every possibility" segment, and is instead in the "proven mortal risk" segment which is rather different.

Don't be daft- Spa has many high speed corners, just like Silverstone. The risk is self evident, and obvious to all who participate and whilst lessons can be learned from some crashes I have no idea whether that's the case here . We'd sure have an odd looking Iom TT course if every casualty effected circuit change .

The only reason this poor lad's death is subject to any 'conversation' at all is because he died on live TV . If it had been a bloke racing an old F3 car in a historic event it wouldn't get an inch coverage .

You're right, because a historic F3 car would be known to be of lower safety specification, and therefore the driver takes on the inherent risk of death. The TT is a road course, not one actively managed and modified for "safety." Apples and oranges.

So we're clear, I'm not saying it *has* to be modified; I'm saying it *has* to be investigated and change considered as a part of that these days.

[shirt]

All competitors would have signed waivers though, so the only litigation possible would be if the circuit had failed to comply with instructions issued by the FIA.

The number of FIA track inspections over a race week is ridiculous, they review daily, post incident and of course there are the steering committees governing overall track and safety design.

No doubt this incident will be scrutinized and recommendations made. Not sure where you think further litigation fits in with this.

Seems to me that the only people who call for litigation and heavy handed change after these kinds of, admittedly tragic, events are those who are not at all involved with the motorsport community.

[RobM77]

skwdenyer said:

coppice said:

skwdenyer said:

In this modern litigious era, if there has been a death it is fairly hard not to at the very least seriously consider making changes to prevent another one at the same place in the same circumstances - otherwise if there *is* another one there in that manner there will most likely be legal hell to pay.

Most people - and, it seems, the Courts - understand that motorsport is dangerous, and you simply cannot mitigate against every possibility. But once a death has happened it is no longer a part of the "every possibility" segment, and is instead in the "proven mortal risk" segment which is rather different.

Don't be daft- Spa has many high speed corners, just like Silverstone. The risk is self evident, and obvious to all who participate and whilst lessons can be learned from some crashes I have no idea whether that's the case here . We'd sure have an odd looking Iom TT course if every casualty effected circuit change .

The only reason this poor lad's death is subject to any 'conversation' at all is because he died on live TV . If it had been a bloke racing an old F3 car in a historic event it wouldn't get an inch coverage .

You're right, because a historic F3 car would be known to be of lower safety specification, and therefore the driver takes on the inherent risk of death. The TT is a road course, not one actively managed and modified for "safety." Apples and oranges.

So we're clear, I'm not saying it *has* to be modified; I'm saying it *has* to be investigated and change considered as a part of that these days.

Very sadly deaths aren't that uncommon in motorsport. Yes, there was indeed one in historic F3 a few years ago.