Murphy's Law Is Wrong: Managing Safety in Motorsports

"For Sweden" (rallybeetle) 11/08/2013 at 09:58 • Filed to: Safety, Racing, Motorsports

33

59

I had the privilege to, for likely the only time in my life, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Few men, if any, have been greater or more effective advocates for safety in Formula 1. Being a transportation safety professional, I was eager to ask him about F1's current safety programs. I have quoted his response below:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

What we have is built in to our cars and also regulates safety. Our fuel systems, for example, in my day there were consistent terrible fires in F1. Now there are no fires. The drive in my day was sitting on the fuel tank, that doesn't exist today. They're created in such a way that they won't explode in a heavy impact. That's preventive medicine. We're conscious that if you have a multiple accident at speed, we have tethers on the wheels. We don't lose wheels like we used to. We still have wheels that get lost from time to time. A wheel came off a Williams and it cost them thousands and thousands of dollars, a fine by the FIA. A lot of drivers have been killed by wheels flying back like that, Senna, Mike Spence, etc. We've governed against those things happening. We have impact testing like the car industry.

Mr. Stewart gives a impressive list of hardware improvements on the car. Elsewhere in the Q&A he mentions !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Yet these changes came in reaction to serious safety failures, and often only address the most visible failure. A wheel falls off? Tie the wheel on. A physician not qualified to treat heavy trauma? Get a new physician. A driver dies after crashing into a tree? Put up a wall. If this seems simplistic, that's because it is. The risk is mitigated, but only passively, and only after the hazard causing the risk becomes the cause of a crash. The systems and culture that created the risk is only changed indirectly, if at all. To ensure the safe continuation of motorsports, risks must be actively managed, and hazards must be realized before they become the causes of tragedies.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Before I continue, understand that while hazards are a constant in motorsports, risks are not. Hazards are conditions and objects with the potential to cause damage and injury under certain circumstances. In motorsports, tires are hazards for their the potential to fly into objects and people. Fuel is a hazard for its potential to burn. Drivers are hazards for their potential to shunt. These hazards cannot be removed and become causes when a safety incident occurs. As for risks, they are the composite of hazards, the probably of the hazard to cause damage, and the severity of the damage caused. Risks are mitigated down to acceptable levels with measures such as tire cables, fireproofing, and driver training, but they never go away completely. Furthermore, only the probability of the hazard causing damage and the severity of that damage, not the hazard itself, may be mitigated at all.

The ability to mitigate risks but not hazards means that focusing on the simple, passive causes, such as the ability for tires to hit things, is never enough. Consider this Australian comedy sketch concerning a maritime accident:

Why did the accident happen? The front fell off. It doesn't usually happen, but it happened this time. The video is comedy, but none of that is incorrect. Race cars, like ships, are built not to crash, and usually don't crash. Yet all of the safety measures listed by Mr. Stewart came in response to crashes; crashes caused by hazards as well known to motorsports as waves are to ship designers. And if they weren't that well known, they should have been. Yet nothing was done until after the fact, a trend that continues to this day.

Consider four of the most recent high-profile motorsports deaths; Ayrton Senna at Imola in 1994, Dale Earnhardt at Daytona in 2001, Dan Weldon at Las Vegas in 2011, and Allan Simonsen at Le Mans in 2013. Senna's crash resulted in the reformation of the Grand Prix Driver's Association and a few regulatory changes, but two unmitigated risks particularity stand out. First, the runoff area at Imola was woefully insufficient. Sure, an F1 car should be able to navigate Tamburello without crashing, but things that can go wrong usually don't. Officials confused usually don't with never will, and didn't change the design until the hazard became an accident cause. Secondly, the Williams mechanics used an untested fabrication to adjust Senna's steering column, a fabrication that ultimately broke. F1 mechanics are some of the best in the world, and their fabrications almost never fail. They confused this with will never fail and sent Senna out, thinking their experience was sufficient testing.

In the case of Dale Earnhardt, his crash resulted in the greatly-improved Car of Tomorrow, the SAFER barrier, and improved seat belt and helmet regulations. But NASCAR knew that crashing head-first into a concrete wall was dangerous, especially with an unrestrained head and improperly-installed seat belt. But it never happened before, so no one did anything to reduce the risks; at least until after the fact. Even today, NASCAR has not adequately mitigated the risk of crashing perpendicularly into a concrete wall at high speed, as evidenced by !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! in the first Michigan race of 2013. That crash rarely happens, but it does happen. Similarly, NASCAR didn't think its jet dryer drivers, operating a vehicle full of the hazard of jet fuel, needed to wear safety equipment because they probably wouldn't get into an accident. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , officials, teams, and drivers knew for years that running open-wheeled cars on intermediate ovals at full throttle with maximum down force was dangerous, but no one died, so nothing was done. Since then, the cars run reduced down force on intermediate ovals, have bodywork around the rear wheels, and posts have been moved outside of the catch fence. Indycar didn't need to wait for someone to die before doing this; everyone knew it would make the racing safer. Especially Dan, a test driver for the new car. But such crashes rarely happen, so change came too late, In the case of !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , we're still waiting for a safe-enough fence.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , the ACO knew, or should have known, that a high-speed collision into the hard Armco at Tertre Rouge would be extremely dangerous. But a car should be able to navigate the corner, and the Armco remained. Time will tell if June's reminder that a car can go off there will lead to any changes.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

There's no reason why these safety improvements can't happen before an accident instead of after one. There's no reason why motorsports has to learn things the hard way. Part of the reason we learn things the hard way is cultural. Everyone knows crashes happen, and happen often. I would be greatly surprised if a professional racing driver could remember even half of the crashes they've had. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , even if !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . That doesn't mean motorsports should resign itself to this inevitability. Sure people usually don't die in crashes, but that doesn't mean they never will. Yet signs of this resignation are found at the highest level of motorsports. After the death of Allan Simonsen, the barrier was returned to pre-race condition, even though that condition contributed to his death. Also, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , Adrian Newey said that the no one would ever know why Senna's car, a car Newey designed, crashed. "We'll never know" is not a good attitude for someone involved in an accident investigation, but for larger cultural reasons an understandable one.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

After the crash, both Newey and Williams technical director Patrick Head were charged in Italian courts for manslaughter. The Italians focused on the simple solution of criminal negligence with the intent to make an example, not to directly make F1 safer. Contrary to the beliefs of many prosecutors, litigation, or any type of punishment, actually has a negative effect on safety. Rather than scaring mechanics into being especially careful, the threat of litigation would keep teams from reporting safety incidents and previously unknown risks. Furthermore, no mechanic wants to raise a safety concern with the technical director if it will only result in claims of insubordination.

So what risks can motorsports proactively mitigate now? Off the top of my head, I can think of energy-absorbing barriers along the complete inside and outside of walls, replacing walls with runoff areas or gravel traps wherever possible, FIA or series certification of all major components, stricter pre-race and post-race safety inspections, and a non-punitive FIA or series-sanctioned crash-investigation panel with full access to any wreckage. I'm sure you, especially those heavily involved in motorsports, can think of more without waiting for another crash or death.

But what of acceptable risk? The constant nature of hazards means that risks are never completely eliminated, short of not racing at all. But the acceptable risks must be defined and agreed upon by all parties, and tests conducted to ensure risks stays below those levels. Some measures, such as crash testing and driver testing, accomplish this. But considering Senna's steering wheel again, that was a part tested by no one. Even today we cannot calculate its likelihood for failure. Almost twenty years later, the risk of failing parts has not been properly mitigated.

Jackie Stewart is likely the greatest safety advocate in the history of F1, but even he equates rarely occurring with never occurring. He says fires don't happen when petrol is still flammable; !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . He also speaks highly of fines to ensure safety, but after paying the fine, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! they solved the problem. Did they? Who knows, but with the threat of fine, you can bet Williams won't be eager to tell the FIA if they find another problem or let the FIA test their fix. Going forward, we're counting that the things that rarely happen never will. Until we implement a proactive safety culture, for everyone involved in motorsports, let's hope those rare failures stay at bay.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Photo credit: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 10:17

1

It all comes down to money. In the minds of the Sanctioning bodies, Team owners, sponsors, etc... why bother spending extra money when they don't need to.

The same thing happens outside racing, just look at every day driving, air travel, trains, firearms and everything else. Nothing will change until somebody, (usually a white teenage girl), dies. Sure, they no of the risks and dangers, but there is always cost vs safety analyst. If the risk of a hazard is low and the amount of money to be saved is high, nothing will change.

And that's how it is.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 10:18

0

Excellent, Well said Sir.

The reactionary mindset to solving problems has lead to an ever increasingly poor state of conditions in nearly every area of society. Mainly because managers/accountants/The PTB are only focused on short-term budgets and not the long-term pay-off or solutions. Granted, sometimes, the long-term results cannot be foreseen, but people could still try to improve conditions for a longer time period than only even the immediate future.

The current state of our highway infrastructure and hilariously pathetic driving training and reexamination as well as vehicle road-worthiness inspection come to mind.

Casper > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 10:19

3

My issue with assessments such as this is that there isn't a threshold set. You reference the acceptable risk, but then say risk has not yet been properly mitigated. At what probability of occurrence vs detriment to the efficiency and purpose of the vehicle/event do we draw the line? What if we consider the point we are currently at with harness, equipment, and car design to be adequate? Just because someone may die tomorrow doesn't change that.

The entire concept presented is circular: we must do enough to reach acceptable risk, but if someone dies we must do more. That would mean it wasn't acceptable risk then, wouldn't it? This is the fundamental problem with most public traffic systems. They are always safe enough until they aren't because someone died. People die, it happens, unless something can be done that has a significantly larger safety impact than it does detrimental impact to the overall systems performance, the death was irrelevant.

For Sweden > Casper 11/08/2013 at 10:25

0

I discuss your concern in my second-to-last paragraph. The acceptable risk must be defined and agreed upon by all parties. Maybe the acceptable risk with current technology is a certain event happening in one in a thousand. Maybe for a different event one in a million in acceptable. But what's acceptable today may not be acceptable with future technology, so the management of risk is never complete.

Casper > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 10:35

0

That's my point and the paragraph I was referencing. They are already agreeing upon it therefore in accordance with your proposed assessment of the definition of "acceptable risk" we are done.

Really the point I think you were intending to make is what you said in your comment: safety is ever evolving and the assessment is never ending. The problem is that is often distorted by protectionist fanatics who take that as liberty to devastate effective systems in the pursuit of absolutes. This is very evident in racing as well as public transportation systems. The key is balance. Everyone will die no matter what happens, but the system must serve it's purpose at a risk factor acceptable to those participating.

For Sweden > Casper 11/08/2013 at 11:15

0

I would disagree that the honest discussion between all parties on acceptable risk, without fear of retribution for speaking up, has been had. From a point of view of this safety professional, F1 and racing looks much like Aviation back in the 1960s: don't rock the boat and fix things only when public outcry demands it. That's not an environment suitable for an honest discussion.

Casper > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 11:42

0

To be fair, racing is nothing like transportation. In racing, risk is part of the system by design... if there were no serious risk, it wouldn't exist. It's not a transit system moving people from A to B, it's a sport designed with the purpose of creating conflict, pushing limits, and forcing participants to make risk vs reward decisions. That doesn't mean the safety systems shouldn't be evaluated, it means the assessment of what constitutes "agreement" is different.

Even in public transit, there isn't agreement. Many people would rather have the option to not have many of the safety features that are mandatory... the enforcement is a matter of blanket politics rather than true "acceptable risk" standards.

Gamecat235 > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 11:44

6

Outstanding piece.

For Sweden > Casper 11/08/2013 at 11:51

1

The argument of "racing's risky, deal with it" is a cop-out. Racing is extremely hazardous, I will agree to that. But risk can always be reduced.

Casper > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 11:53

0

No one made that argument. I pointed out that your logic for how to determine "agreement" does not translate to racing. It's an optional participant system. If any driver objected to safety standards their team follows or series follows, can always change or not participate.

You seem to think that a disagreement with your opinion means a disagreement with all safety.

For Sweden > Casper 11/08/2013 at 12:02

0

All transportation systems, sporting, public, or otherwise, are optional participation. However, racing is a system that uses punitive actions to enforce safety, which stifles an open discussion on safety. Look at the fine Williams received for not properly securing their tires. Williams did not act out of malice, so instead of a fine scaring teams into line, it only scares teams into keeping quiet and hoping their systems don't fail.

Casper > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 12:15

0

That's a different argument, but I agree with the premise. The example is flawed. The system is designed to force compliance for fear of fines (exactly the same as transportation systems) and that's what it does. There is no other system to encourage extra diligence. How else would you correct mistakes? Of course, the idea that punitive systems discourage dialog and self reporting is true.

Mistakes will exist so long as human beings are involved. Improving safety technology is another matter. The real key to safety is already in place: liability. It's a sliding and ever evolving "acceptable risk" standard.

For Sweden > Casper 11/08/2013 at 12:26

0

The system is designed to force compliance for fear of fines (exactly the same as transportation systems)

No, that's not how other transportation systems work. They use non-punitive audits and investigations, anonymous incident reporting, expanded testing by independent parties, driver/mechanic resource management, etc.

UKPDXWRX > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 12:31

1

I know this feel!

Casper > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 12:32

0

Really? I thought massive government fines from transportation departments, government initiated lawsuits, and traffic citations were a thing... guess I can drive as fast as I want with a shattered windshield.

What you are talking about is IN ADDITION to the audits and investigations. In fact, there are also audits that happen in racing (of both of crews and equipment). In fact, the audits in racing are even more aggressive as they have much more exacting standards for equipment and physical health. Yes, they will be fined after an avoidable mistake, but they were also audited before for compliance and the situation will be evaluated after the fact to see if anything else could have been done.

For Sweden > Casper 11/08/2013 at 12:37

0

Governments litigate maliciousness and wanton recklessness, not errors.

chad.j > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 12:39

1

Fantastic article and a worthy topic. The "cheese-grader" catch fence needs to be redesigned period. More drivers, spectators, etc will be injured due to the design. Hoping a new solution is developed soon...

MTY85 > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 12:41

0

The problem with things like this is that people do not want to acknowledge the point where increased safety harms the entertainment value of the sport, because that's quantifying the value of a human life, and our culture generally doesn't like to do that. Let's give all the cars 400cc dirt bike engines, that'll slow them down and make it much safer. But nobody wants that, do they. Limit it to 600cc? A liter? Two liters? Reactive safety is the only way to do it because nobody is willing to say "I'm fine with this level of safety, but my entertainment value trumps your life's safety past that."

For Sweden > MTY85 11/08/2013 at 12:44

0

Reactive safety is a bloody business. I have full faith that, with a certain mindset, the engineers and designers in motorsports can reduce risk and keep the racing as exciting as ever.

Carbyne > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 12:45

0

So who are the companies/researchers actively working on new safety solutions? Anything from HANS devices to the actually barriers along the track. I am asking this for two reasons really. One, is there really a market out there for this? Second, this is a field I am interested in getting into one day (I'm a mechanical engineering student right now).

Casper > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 12:47

0

It's a punitive action against what they consider to be a violation of safety standards (or politically justifiable standards). Last time I checked "wanton recklessness" was still subjective.

For Sweden > Carbyne 11/08/2013 at 12:48

0

HANS and the companies that make the track barriers are two choices, but look for anything with the term Forensics Engineering.

tigeraid > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 11/08/2013 at 12:52

2

This.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a stockcar racer myself. I fully agree we should be pro-active in improving safety. I use a HANS device, and have a full containment seat, but they weren't put in my car because *I* thought "I should have this." I have them because my sanctioning body requires it, after NASCAR first did them.

But it's all about money. It's not as simple as hiring a dude to look at a track and think up safety improvements. It means paying for a pretty large group of people an exorbitant amount of money to do tons of in-depth research, hiring scientists, doing uncountable crash tests, and taking up time at racetracks which, in some cases, will charge them just to be there.

And THEN come the improvements. Which could potentially cost millions more. And here's the elephant in the room that a lot of bitter NASCAR fans point out by the community ignores them: what happens when these safety groups determine that Talladega and Daytona (and hell, maybe the Nordschleife, LeMans and Sebring for similar reasons) simply, bar-none, 100% cannot exist because their inherent design is completely unsafe?

I despise Talladega, in particular, and wish it would simply be torn down. There's no fixing it, the racing is horrible and fake and the dangers unacceptable. But tell that to NASCAR when it's its highest rated race.

Great article, regardless.

MTY85 > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 12:56

1

They can and they have, but unless a safety feature gives them a competitive advantage, they aren't going to implement it unless it's regulated, and it won't be regulated until an obvious reason for it emerges because the teams will all moan and bitch that it's an unneeded cost.

For Sweden > MTY85 11/08/2013 at 12:57

0

Then we'll just have to wait for teams to realize having their driver dead or injured is a competitive disadvantage.

JEM > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 13:13

1

A great article, should be on the front page definitely.

Few points though...

#1: You're idea for safer barriers along every wall of every track, while theoretically possible, would effectively eliminate street courses. Or at least, the possibility of any vehicle passing on a street course. Also, I'd imagine on smaller tracks the cost/re-design who be hugely prohibitive.

#2: Accidents will happen, no matter what, in ways that people simply would never think of predicting. A frightening example of this is Gunter's Camaro going over the wall at Road America in 2011:

That accident has so many WTF moments in it it's hard to keep up... How the hell did that Camaro clear the wall? How the hell did it not slow down in the gravel? How the hell did Gunter walk away from that unscathed? How did Joe Foster wind up breaking his back? Point is, that is a weird-ass accident, as ass accidents go, and no one could predict that. Everything from a safety point looks good, huge gravel run-off trap, tire wall, catch fence and still you have a car ejected from the track, and a driver with a broken back from the one that stayed inside the track.

Racing is inherently dangerous. I think if it wasn't, we'd have to come up with a new name for it. Like jogging or something. I think by it's very nature, it has to be somewhat. Pillow fights will not fill stadiums. Dimly lit bars, most definitely, but not stadiums.

So it's dangerous, sure, but how dangerous is the question? I think we need to look at this like other industries: what are we willing to accept in terms of loss of life? Used to be possibly one a month, or one a season or... point is everything around you is designed with some acceptable risk in mind. That bridge you drove over to get to work, depending when it was built, a number of works dying in it's construction was an acceptable loss. That water system you use daily? It's meant to handle a 50 year storm. People will likely drown if it receives a 100 year storm but that's an acceptable risk designed into the system.

So how many drivers are we prepared to lose? You can't say "none" because that's just not a possible answer. Is 1 a decade an acceptable number? It seems that's about where we are at for racing series.

MTY85 > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 13:16

0

Such a competitive disadvantage that Williams still won the constructor's championship the year Senna died, and both championships two years later? And both, again, the year after that? Because they suffered such a competitive disadvantage?

For Sweden > MTY85 11/08/2013 at 13:18

0

I'm sure that will happen every time.

Axel-Ripper > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 13:19

0

I have to disagree with you on a few points here.

First, the Senna crash. Newey is right, that we'll never know. It was really almost a comedy of errors that contributed to his crash. Components failed, he spun, and things went flying, though not necessarily in that exact error. From a racecar engineering standpoint, you never know if a part will fail until you test it. Yes, you could have taken a modified steering column (something that I do agree should never be done at the track) and cyclically loaded it to see when it would fail, but that takes time and money, which are in rather short supply in any industry. The best way to test parts is to, well, test the parts. Put them on a car and run with them. If he would have been driving a test (or someone else driving his car in a test) at another track, the same thing could have happened. Yes, it failed during a race, but it could have happened anywhere.

When you're building parts for a racecar, you design them to be light weight, stiff, and strong enough to last. In OEM industry you can leave out the light weight stuff occasionally, as the way that a part gets used varies far more greatly than in a racing situation. Racing parts are much more on edge, because if you don't improve, someone will take the risk, and then you lose. See: Colin Chapman.

The only way you can completely remove the risk of injury is to remove all of the hazards. Is there more than could be done at the current point? Yes. But you can't make the sport 100% safe. Not only will people not watch (lets face it, as much as you say that you watch for the race, the risk of a car failing out of the race due to mechanical failure or a driver mistake is part of it) but it is simply impossible. You can't plan for accidents. That is why they're called accidents.

Even if you consider iRacing, which is about the only way that you cannot be harmed if your virtual car crashes, you could still have a computer fire, house fire, stub your toe on a beer run, or have a meteor crash through the roof of your house and hit you on the head.

For Sweden > JEM 11/08/2013 at 13:19

1

No driver deaths is the goal, even if it is unobtainable. That's why we must always keep improving.

MTY85 > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 13:21

0

I've made my point, but the problem is that I'm approaching this from a rational point of view and you're approaching it from an ideological point of view. You want F1 racing to be as dangerous as laying down in a field of lilies, I'm point out that it just doesn't work like that.

For Sweden > MTY85 11/08/2013 at 13:24

0

If that's what you're reading, you didn't read the article.

JEM > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 13:25

0

That's great and all, but as an engineer, you can't set an un-obtainable goal.

I think in the same way you can't say "design a levee system that will never flood" you can't say "design a car/racetrack where no one will die".

That said, I think things like the HANS device and wheel straps are brilliant because they are (fairly) low-cost and simple things that have a huge impact. What I do wonder is not if we could foam-line everything, but what small improvements are yet to be made that could mitigate disasters some more?

For Sweden > Axel-Ripper 11/08/2013 at 13:26

0

I see Colin Chapman, and I see a lot of dead drivers.

For Sweden > JEM 11/08/2013 at 13:28

1

Small and large improvements of safety is the result of always improving. Keep working, but never think the work is done.

Bump > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 13:35

1

Let me start by saying that I believe race cars and racing facilities NEED to be absolutely safe as possible. No doubt about it.

But I also believe that as long as we expect to sell tickets to paying spectators in exchange for an afternoon or evening of entertainment that there needs to be the ILLUSION of danger. It's part of the entertainment package. I fully believe that there needs to be the occasional wild crash spreading parts everywhere and a general sense of mayham. I believe that in some ways this is already lacking in modern spectator automobile racing. F1 looks safe, like slot cars zipping around the track. Again, I am glad that it IS much safer than it used to be, but does this tradeoff of safety have to result in the loss of entertainment value? Is there a way to retain the level of safety while still looking like everyone is out of control and that disaster (in the form of wrecked racecars....not wrecked racecar drivers) is just right around the next corner?

We did sort of see this a few years ago when F1 held a larger number than usual races during inclement weather. The races were just more exciting than usual, mostly due to the increased odds that someone would go offline and crash....or recover from the mistake and work his tail off to regain lost ground.

Mikey > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 13:45

3

Excellent article.

I have a lot to say on this, but I'll keep it simple for now: Can everything always be prevented? No. Does that mean we shouldn't try? Again, no. We absolutely need more proactive safety in motorsports (and elsewhere). Acting is cheaper and quicker than reacting, always.

Mikey > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 11/08/2013 at 13:52

1

I don't think we disagree, so please consider that this comment is addressed to the universe, or at least team owners/leaders:

Why bother to spend the money? In addition to the value of a life (and medical bills), you spend the money because in accidents like Senna's, you should consider the cost of never making the money you could have after a great driver's career is ended by serious injury or death. How many more championships would Senna have won? For the slight weight penalty of a beefier steering column?

Carbyne > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 13:57

0

Awesome thanks!

David Gabel > UKPDXWRX 11/08/2013 at 14:03

1

Ouch. how did it happen and turn out afterwards?

TrackRatMk1 > Casper 11/08/2013 at 15:05

1

I would just like to point out that this is the kind of useful debate I actively seek out in the comment section. Kudos to both you and ForSweden for the respectable discourse, even if neither of you are swayed from your point.

That said, don't let my .02 be the fuel that reignites a dying ember! Here goes...

There have been preventative safety changes that did not take a death to implement. Wider tracks and deeper runoff areas have become the norm to achieve high grade FIA certification. Curbings have been shortened. Tire walls made thicker. Tracks may not want to spend the money to comply, and that's fine but if they don't, it is a lower certification for them and they lose out on millions of potential revenues from running higher profile series.

But does anyone really think that if no one died in motor racing from the 1930's until today that our tracks would still be dirt or poorly paved? That the armco would still be inches away from the end of high speed braking zones? That we would have no fencing at all to shield spectators? This hypothetical is why actuaries are paid big bucks. They deal with the assessment of risk... brought about by hazards, which are inevitable. Advancements are made both on the part of the teams and the venues to promote safety not just when people are killed or injured, but when drivers and teams and stewards see the potential for someone to be killed or injured. Thus we see things like manhole covers welded prior to street circuit races, and unacceptable pavement being ground down. Remember Baltimore GP?

The reactive nature of regulations in response to death is often an unfortunate PR tactic to try to save face of those at fault. It's a reply to critics looking to place blame while they shout, "something must be done!" Of course, something will always be done and maybe, rightly so, however how noble or ulterior the motive. But 99 times out of 100 it doesn't take a death or a genius to show where the risk lies.

Dr.Kamiya > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 15:27

0

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but your headline is a bit confusing. Because all of your points essentially agree that Murphy's Law is right:

Anything that can go wrong, will eventually go wrong, no matter how small the chances may be; hence the need to pro-actively anticipate risks.

For Sweden > Dr.Kamiya 11/08/2013 at 15:36

0

Murphy's Law says nothing explicitly about eventuality. People who use Murphy's Law use the absence of things going wrong as evidence that they won't go wrong. In reality, things that can go wrong usually don't, so don't fall complacent if they don't go wrong for a while.

Axel-Ripper > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 15:45

0

Very correct. He did push things over the limit very often. He's the perfect example really of "going too far" when making a car faster. Motorsport has regulated his type of engineering out of being when it comes to safety aspects of the cars. I was simply using him as the example of how far people are willing to go to become faster. We've simply gotten better at knowing where that line is and how to avoid crossing it.

Dr.Kamiya > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 15:46

0

Pardon then. I tend to see Murphy's Law from an engineering viewpoint.

In this case, if a system allows things to go wrong, then it will do so eventually, hence the need to design such possibilities out, or at least have a way of handling exceptions. It's a core tenet behind defensive design.

Dr.Kamiya > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 15:56

0

The story of how the old epitaph "Anything can go wrong, will go wrong" eventually came to be called "Murphy's Law" is heavily grounded in engineering, and was actually a basis for planning for the worst possible scenario.

Quoting from jargon @ project gutenberg:

ftp:// ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext97/jarg400.txt

:Murphy's Law: /prov./ The correct, *original* Murphy's Law reads: "If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it." This is a principle of defensive design, cited here because it is usually given in mutant forms less descriptive of the challenges of design for {luser}s. For example, you don't make a two-pin plug symmetrical and then label it `THIS WAY UP'; if it matters which way it is plugged in, then you make the design asymmetrical (see also the anecdote under {magic smoke}). Edward A. Murphy, Jr. was one of the engineers on the rocket-sled experiments that were done by the U.S. Air Force in 1949 to test human acceleration tolerances (USAF project MX981). One experiment involved a set of 16 accelerometers mounted to different parts of the subject's body. There were two ways each sensor could be glued to its mount, and somebody methodically installed all 16 the wrong way around. Murphy then made the original form of his pronouncement, which the test subject (Major John Paul Stapp) quoted at a news conference a few days later. Within months `Murphy's Law' had spread to various technical cultures connected to aerospace engineering. Before too many years had gone by variants had passed into the popular imagination, changing as they went. Most of these are variants on "Anything that can go wrong, will"; this is correctly referred to as {Finagle's Law}. The memetic drift apparent in these mutants clearly demonstrates Murphy's Law acting on itself!

UKPDXWRX > David Gabel 11/08/2013 at 16:03

1

Track days. I've gone down on the asphalt, and ive gone down in the grass. I much prefer the asphalt. Eating it on a bike at the track does give you the privileged of scoffing at automobile track day concerns. Not because they are not important, they are, but because man stuff.

Oh yes, restrain your arms with special straps! I'll be over here straddling this engine with two wheels attached at 170mph down the front straight.

David Gabel > UKPDXWRX 11/08/2013 at 16:05

1

do elaborate. I've not raced (at all) so I'm intrigued about preference being pavement vs grass

UKPDXWRX > David Gabel 11/08/2013 at 16:11

1

It's not really an actual preference, just experience. I lowsided at about 70mph on asphalt and thanks to track-level gear I just slid gracefully down the pavement on my side and then rolled once or twice. Granted everything went right, but it was a total non event (for me, the bike took some hurt.)

The other time I went down I ran off the track due to bad position and someone passing a little tight. Went into wet grass at about 50(?) and stuffed the front. This track was new and the landscaping needs some work so I got beat up a bit bouncing along bumpy grassy sod which kind of kicked my ass a bit.

All bets are off if you eat shit at high speeds but that's rare. Guys usually dump it in the tight corners. One time I did see a guy that didn't belong in B group at all (he was clearly a novice) stuff his brand new 1199 Panigale at ~120 on the back straight and he went flying off the track into the grass. Got his shit kicked bad (broken femur etc) and his $17000 motorcycle turned itself into a parts catalog.

Motorcycles are fun!

David Gabel > UKPDXWRX 11/08/2013 at 16:23

0

I see. That actually seems like a good way to go since the pavement is smoother. Never thought about it that way before as I assumed that the grass and dirt would "grab" causing more friction to slow you down with. Glad you came out of it OK.

Kylemaro > For Sweden 11/08/2013 at 17:35

0

i know im pretty much gonna be in the hated minority here but to me racing has to be dangerous. when i do it i give it my full undivided attention 100% of the time. driving in general actually. and i hate watching professionals. NASCAR, some dick who hasn't raced his way up learning respect for both others around him the track or life and death, gets to drive what is unrivaled the most powerful racing car in America and he gets to do it around 42 other people on the track a whole shitload of people on pit road and one hell of a lot of people in the stands protected by some fencing. now does he feel confident wrecking himself and everyone else because he cant fucking drive? well probably not but he doesn't fear for his life or the lives of those around him. and dammit i just think that if he did he'd do a fucking better job f not crashing. if losing the car in a turn meant that you were going into the wall and maybe not coming back out of it, you'd probably not lose the car. maybe im wrong i mean when formula 1 was at its absolute most dangerous (pre 76 i say) drivers died pretty much at weekly or bi weekly intervals. and accidents definitely happened. am i wrong to say safe racing is boring? i think so

H0Zr > For Sweden 11/09/2013 at 15:32

0

Well this should piss some folks off. (This pertains to the USA more than Europe)

A physician not qualified to treat heavy trauma? Get a new physician.

Here it is: Get rid of the Physicians. Physicians at the track (the majority of the time) hinder definitive care of the trauma patient. Definitive trauma care can ONLY happen in a trauma center by a trauma surgeon with the correct facility and equipment. Physicians on scene usually want to treat the patient in the medical center when the absolute MOST essential issue is RAPID TRANSPORT. ANYTHING that hinders transport to the trauma center (ie:treating at the medical center) is detrimental to patient outcome. Yes I'm speaking in some generalities and infinitives but for the most part this holds true: Physicians at the race track adversely affect patient outcome.

jariten1781 > For Sweden 08/25/2015 at 12:59

0

Not arguing with your sentiment, but it drives me nuts when people set ‘goals’ like “No driver deaths”.

That’s just a platitude. It’s achievable only by fundamentally transforming the sport into something that’s unrecognizable and not viable. Setting an unachievable goal just leads the team to throw up their hands in frustration. They’re never rewarded for the efforts and constantly reprimanded when they inevitably can’t achieve the impossible. It’s seen all the time when cities set ‘goals’ like ‘no pedestrian deaths’ or ‘no murders’ or factories set them at ‘no workplace injuries’ or ‘no quality escapes’. It chills the atmosphere and actively stifles progress. Setting realistic goals like ‘reduction in drivers sent to off-track care facilities by X% by date Y’ is a much better program.

But yeah, I fully agree that safety (and risk management in general) needs to be an important part of any business rhythm. I don't know enough to say whether or not the large racing organizations are doing it, but spot-lighting what they have and taking a good turn is expected and warranted whenever there's a major incident/escape/realization.

For Sweden > jariten1781 08/25/2015 at 13:02

0

Perfection is a direction, not a destination. Always work towards zero fatalities, and the number will go down as technology and practices develop.

desertdog5051 > For Sweden 08/25/2015 at 13:22

0

Great post, For Sweden.

DogonCrook > For Sweden 08/25/2015 at 13:28

0

So let’s take motorcycle racing. It’s a lot clearer that you can only go so far and then it just doesn’t exist anymore. You can’t put 4 wheels on it, and you can’t encapsulate the rider. If the goal is always to improve safety no matter what, the end result is you no longer have certain types of racing. The opinion that no deaths are acceptable is not universally shared. I personally feel, as unfortunate as it is, death is sometimes an acceptable outcome.

For Sweden > DogonCrook 08/25/2015 at 13:30

0

That’s a terrible reason to keep the status quo

DogonCrook > For Sweden 08/25/2015 at 13:31

0

I didn’t say anything about not making improvements, I think I was pretty clear in saying that there are limits.

RallyWrench > For Sweden 08/25/2015 at 15:09

1

Thoughtful and well put. I just watched the documentary “1” recently, which drove several of these points home. Also, extra points for using that “The front fell off” skit in the context of a much more serious discussion.

I often work in hot pit lanes, and there are myriad issues with moving the sport as a whole forward with regard to safety, as some facilities will never be able to reach the standards of others due simply to space and infrastructure limitations. Rally stages and Monaco come immediately to mind, as does the pitlane at the Nurburgring 24, which is barely contained chaos and uses old-style gas pumps. Overcoming the recalcitrance of the culture is perhaps an even bigger hurdle, as it’s only ever been reactionary. Safety culture is not always ingrained, and that starts as early as individuals on the autocross field or club trackday (bro). I’ve worked for some pro and amateur teams that were downright scary, and some that were absolutely prepared for any eventuality. Complacency gets people hurt, on both sides of the (woefully outdated) fence.

As to improving tracks, Circuit Paul Ricard demonstrates what can done to make a racing facility as safe as possible without resorting to worldwide Tilkedromes. I mean, we won’t be clear cutting the forest around the ‘Ring and grading 200 foot gravel traps at every turn, and we can’t really put 15 foot deep impact barriers all around Monaco because it would impinge on the track, and we can’t move the walls back because there are buildings in the way. On the other hand, Spa, for being another incredible natural terrain legacy circuit through the forest, has what I believe to be a very high level of safety consideration, especially considering the speeds it fosters.

The elephant in the room with the majority of deaths in the last 20 years since Senna is head injuries and open cockpits. Clearly something has to be done, but what’s best is anyone’s guess. WEC prototype coupes, for example, are supremely safe machines, which somewhat mitigates the inherent danger of some of the legacy tracks they race on. That doesn’t mean the tracks shouldn’t be improved, but it demonstrates what can be done when the regulations are focused closely on advancement and driver safety.

For Indy and F1, I don’t necessarily advocate closed cockpits yet because I don’t think there’s enough research to back it up yet in formula-style series, and I understand that part of the allure is being able to see the driver at work (that and stubborn tradition). Considerations include impact resistance (and thus weight), driver cooling, visibility (glare, fogging, cleaning), ease of replacement if damaged, and rollover extraction, just to start. Whatever is done, it needs to be considered holistically, not just as tacking on solutions to a broken base. The final product can’t just be slapping a canopy on an existing chassis. Road and race cars designed specifically to pass certain crash tests come to mind as well. Sure, the nose cone deforms properly to dissipate energy against a stationary object, and the fuel bladder self seals when punctured in the lab, but someone Pastor Maldonado will always find a way to exceed the design limits, and what happens when his Lotus scores a direct hit from the air? Tragically, we saw what happens when an Indycar nose goes flying in the wrong direction. Kimi Raikkonen was unbelievably lucky that his crash with Alonso at Austria was not worse. Inches in any direction and he could have been leaving in a helicopter. We cannot possibly foresee every eventuality in every series, but at the very least F1 and Indycar, as the world’s premier open wheel series, should go in together on a development study of possible solutions for the future of open-wheel racing.