On this day, ten years ago, the Formula 1 paddock received a harsh and brutal reality check. A stark reminder of the ever-present dangers inherent with racing the quickest cars on the planet.
The two decades that followed the unforgettably ugly events at Imola in 1994 were the safest the sport had ever seen, a direct result of sweeping changes driven by a shared commitment from teams, drivers and the governing body to never experience another grand prix weekend like it again.As a result of these efforts, an entire generation of fans grew up with the luxury of never knowing how it felt to watch one of their heroes die behind the wheel of a Formula 1 car. Yes, there had been injuries. There had also been deaths – marshals Paolo Ghislimberti and Graham Beveridge had lost their lives volunteering for the sport they loved. But drivers were different. No matter how horrific or violent the crashes, they would either be rushed to hospital and stabilised – such as Mika Hakkinen in Adelaide 1995 – or simply climb out of their wrecked cars under their own power.
But October 5th 2014 was the last day that 25-year-old Marussia driver Jules Bianchi was able to do what he loved – what millions of fans admired him for. Nine months later, Bianchi’s life would come to its end, a direct consequence of what happened that day at Suzuka.
Before the accident
Twenty years prior, a wet race at Suzuka had seen a near-tragedy at the fast, uphill left-hander of Dunlop. Footwork driver Gianni Morbidelli lost control of his car in the full-wet conditions, crashing into the outside tyre barriers. The incident was covered under local yellow flags, with multiple marshals and two course vehicles entering the track surface.
Moments later, Martin Brundle aquaplaned off the circuit at the same spot as Morbidelli, sliding into the barrier and knocking over one of the marshals recovering the crashed Footwork. The marshal suffered a broken leg in the incident, which resulted in the race being stopped. Brundle was later reprimanded by the event’s stewards for “not controlling his car’s speed” in the conditions, although the driver insisted that he “was not pushing particularly hard” around the wet track due to the volume of water on the circuit.
Despite the accident, the culture around the use of localised yellow flags remained largely the same over the coming decades. The ‘best drivers in the world’ were largely trusted by the FIA and F1’s race director Charlie Whiting to obey yellow flags in the event of accidents, with many single-car accidents covered by local yellow flags by trackside marshals on track, rather than races being neutralised by a Safety Car first.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Recovering cars also meant sending recovery vehicles into the gravel trap, or even the track itself, to remove wreckage. But, again, this was often covered with local yellow flags. There was no such concept, in Formula 1 at least, of a ‘Virtual Safety Car’ or ‘Full Course Yellow’ – which would be introduced into the FIA’s World Endurance Championship at the start of 2014 – compelling drivers to slow down to a track-wide speed limit.
“This always terrifies me when you get a John Deere coming into play,” Brundle muttered to co-commentator Murray Walker. “If one car can make it into there, all of the cars can make it that far.
“One day, somebody’s going to end up underneath that tractor – it really terrifies me.”
The Bianchi tragedy
On lap 42 of the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix at a soaking wet Suzuka circuit, Sauber driver Adrian Sutil lost control of his car rounding the uphill Dunlop curve, spinning into the tyre barriers. The incident was covered under local double yellow flags. Marshals immediately entered the track, with a recovery vehicle driving out to also attend to the scene.
“Sutil’s seventh retirement… but where is the car? How quickly can they get it out of the way?,” Brundle mused on the Sky F1 broadcast. “Are others going to be aquaplaning or spinning off at the same point? Something that’s a bit sensitive to me, because it happened to me…”
Bianchi was extracted from his car and driven by ambulance to the Mie General Medical Center in Yokkaichi – the medical helicopter that otherwise would have flown him to the hospital having been unable to take off in the poor conditions. Two days later, Marussia announced Bianchi had suffered a “diffuse axonal injury” to his brain and was in a critical but stable condition.
Several weeks later, Bianchi was transferred to Le Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice in his native France for further treatment. He never regained consciousness. In July 2015, the Bianchi family announced that Jules had died from his injuries. He was 25 years old.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
After the tragedy
Their finding was that there was “no apparent reason why the Safety Car should have been deployed either before or after Sutil’s accident” after examining almost 400 yellow flag incidents over the previous eight years leading to Bianchi’s crash. They determined that the Marussia driver “did not slow sufficiently” under the double yellow flags, suggesting that had Bianchi slowed in accordance with the regulations regarding yellow flags, there should have been no immediate physical danger for Bianchi, his fellow drivers or trackside marshals.
Several recommendations for the future were suggested by the panel resulting from the accident. The first was a proposed revision to the FIA’s yellow flag regulations, allowing for a maximum speed limit to be imposed on drivers in double yellow flag zones. Other suggestions included changing race schedules to avoid regular rainy seasons and ensure grand prix starts do not take place too close to sunset outside of planned night races.
At the start of the following season in 2015, the FIA introduced the Virtual Safety Car into the sport. The VSC was first deployed in that year’s sixth round in Monaco, following a crash between Max Verstappen and Romain Grosjean. The VSC has remained in use by the championship ever since.
The first tests of the halo on F1 cars were conducted throughout the 2016 season, with the FIA making the halo mandatory for the world championship from 2018. The device was also installed on that year’s inaugural F2 car and F3 cars the following season, before being extended to F4 cars from 2021.
Importantly, the FIA’s safety director of the time, Laurent Mekies, stressed that analysis showed that the halo would not have saved Bianchi from grave injury had one been installed on his Marussia that day in Suzuka. After analysing several historic serious and fatal accidents in single-seater motorsport, which showed the halo would have improved safety outcomes in many ‘car-to-environment’ accidents, it was determined the outcome of Bianchi’s crash would not have been affected by the halo as the impact forces involved far exceeded the capabilities of the device.
Although its design received criticism from some drivers and fans after its introduction, the halo has become a ubiquitous and accepted aspect of modern single-seater motorsport. The device has been credited with preventing several driver injuries and even saving lives since its introduction. Roman Grosjean credited his survival from his horrific fiery crash in Bahrain 2020 to the halo deflecting the barrier away from his head, while Lewis Hamilton says the halo prevented him suffering injury when Verstappen’s Red Bull climbed over the top of his Mercedes after the pair clashed in Monza in 2021.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Suzuka back under the spotlight
When the new generation ground effect F1 cars were introduced in 2022, they were deemed to be the safest ever with more driver protection reinforcements than ever before. That appeared to be proven when Alfa Romeo driver Zhou Guanyu was unhurt in his frightening opening lap crash at the British Grand Prix, where the halo was again credited with helping Zhou survive major injury while upside down, despite his rollover hoop having broken on impact.
But when the sport returned to Suzuka in September for the first time since the pandemic, drivers were confronted by haunting memories of the events of eight years prior.
As Gasly approached the turn at 200kph, he found a tractor on track off the racing line recovering Sainz’s Ferrari. Gasly immediately expressed outrage to his team that there had been a recovery vehicle on track that he had passed at speed in the wet conditions without prior warning aside from the local yellow flag – drawing parallels with Bianchi’s accident. Gasly was later handed a 20-second time penalty for speeding under a red flag along the back straight following the incident, where he reached 250kph.
After Suzuka, the FIA – now under the leadership of new president Mohammed Ben Sulayem – issued a review of the race and the actions of race director Eduardo Freitas, who was sharing duties that season with Niels Wittich. While Gasly was noted to have been driving too quickly into the accident scene, the review also found that he had been able to drive faster than intended under Safety Car conditions due to a quirk in the system resulting from his slow opening lap.
Reducing spray with the ground effect cars was also made a key aim of the FIA. The governing body conceptualised and tested multiple potential solutions to reduce spray in wet conditions and improve wet weather visibility, including spray guards behind wheels tested by Mercedes reserve driver Mick Schumacher in 2023 and wheel covers which were tested by Ferrari at their Fiorano test circuit earlier this season. After initial tests failed to produce promising results, further development work on these spray guards has now been scrapped.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Lessons still to learn
Like the pursuit of performance, F1 and the FIA’s quest to make the sport safer for its drivers, marshals and fans without stripping away the essence of what makes the series so beloved is a never-ending one. But just as it was easy to believe that there would never be a driver fatality again when Bianchi was still competing in Formula 1, no one should ever assume that is the case now.
Largely overlooked among the natural focus on driver safety in the aftermath of the Bianchi accident was the dangers that marshals face during races, given how close track workers had come to being struck. Formula 1 has narrowly escaped further tragedy on multiple occasions over the years.
Less than a year after Bianchi’s crash, the 2016 Singapore Grand Prix saw the race restarted from a Safety Car period while a marshal was still collecting debris on the run to turn one. In 2019, Racing Point driver Sergio Perez came close to striking two marshals in Monaco who were running across the track as he exited the pit lane under a Safety Car. The following year in Imola, Perez’s team mate Lance Stroll passed by multiple marshals sweeping the circuit on the downhill run to Acque Minerale at over 250kph.
Last year, Alpine junior driver Victor Martins received a drive-through penalty in a race in Monaco for failing to slow for yellow flags as he narrowly avoided two marshals attending to an accident. Post-race procedures were permanently altered last year after an alarming incident at the end of the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, when Esteban Ocon pitted on the final lap, only to be greeted by a pack of photographers in the fast lane taking their places for the post-race parc ferme.
Ten years later, there are several reasons why Formula 1 is now safer than ever before – many of them a direct result of the events of October 3rd 2014. From the halo, which could have saved Jules Bianchi’s life and has likely saved many others, to increased sensitivity around accidents and how they are handled by race control, so much is already in place to help ensure no similar tragedy is ever allowed to happen again. However, the deaths of Hubert and Van ‘t Hoff show driver safety can never be taken for granted even in 2024, nor can the dangers posed to pit crews, marshals or even spectators.
But Jules Bianchi’s legacy in Formula 1 is far more than how the sport he loved has become safer in his name. Like Ayrton Senna, Roland Ratzenberger and so many of his peers before him, Bianchi will continue to be remembered and celebrated for what he achieved in F1 as well as respected for everything he surely would have gone on to achieved if he had only been granted the chance.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Formula 1
- Hamilton making “drastic shift” in driving style to master Ferrari’s car
- Verstappen: Frustration over Bahrain result behind manager and Marko’s ‘garage row’
- Drivers’ multi-year contracts ‘don’t mean anything if there’s an exit clause’ – Russell
- Verstappen rumours are good for Aston Martin, says Alonso
- Reid received support “from the very top of motorsport” after leaving FIA
Nick T.
5th October 2024, 8:49
It’s a hard truth, but the Bianchi incident was nearly solely his fault. Yes, we all remember how often Brundle used to say he cringed at those little diggers being sent out to recover cars, but those were in the days when cars treated yellows like I’ll do 99.5% instead of 100%. And this was under a VSC. Not even a yellow. So, there was no excuse for Bianchi to be going as fast as he was.
Anaya, Halo has been a great innovation. OTH, F1 has eventually gone so far to the other extreme as to be comical: safety cars, VSCs or even red flags EVERY TIME a car breaks down, crashes or pulls off, no matter how far and/or how safely they’re positioned. When only 1/8th of a car is sticking out of a catch fence and they’re still calling safety cars, you can only laugh in disgusted disbelief.
Let’s remember, that besides Bianchi, a driver hasn’t been killed by hitting another car on the side of the track or a recovery vehicle, for more than 50 years IIRC. Yet, we’ve allowed it to change not just the way we handle recovering cars in wet, high spray and low light conditions, but all incidents. It simply makes no sense and makes a mockery of the sport.
Nick T.
5th October 2024, 8:52
I’ll add that he was also saying that because often cars were being recovered under full green and not even yellow let alone a double yellow, which was insane. Even more insane is when they recovering cars under green with multiple marshals on the live track. And this was the ‘90s. Not the 60s or 70s.
RandomMallard
5th October 2024, 9:10
Bianchi’s accident was not under VSC, as the Virtual Safety Car did not exist at that point – it was brought in as a direct consequence of his accident. It was in fact only covered by local yellows. Could he have slowed down more – yes. But there wasn’t a prescribed speed/delta for him to be following like there would be under VSC.
Nick T.
5th October 2024, 9:20
Brain fart. Mixing up the fact his crash created the VSC and him being under it. Doesn’t change anything though. He was flying and not respecting the yellow – doubly so given the conditions, personnel on track, etc. And I believe it was a double yellow. And, for anyone who’s raced, a double yellow means be ready to stop if necessary. So, regardless, he holds the vast majority of the responsibility.
RandomMallard
5th October 2024, 9:29
Oh I agree that he didn’t slow enough for the yellows, but that buck didn’t start or end with Bianchi, he was just the most unfortunate victim of it. I still believe the FIA has got to crack down on drivers not properly following yellows.
User463
5th October 2024, 11:13
It’s clear from the Gasly near-incident and the Monaco one with Martins that the drivers will do everything possible to avoid losing out under any kind of flag conditions, and are willing to put the lives of marshals at risk if it means they can save a couple of seconds. So 100% agree the FIA has to punish them more severely.
Tristan
5th October 2024, 12:58
It’s a culture that persists and you can’t blame them. The stakes are so high, the rewards so great, and if they’re not taking every opportunity they can to get an advantage they’re letting themselves, the team, etc etc down.
That’s why you’re completely correct and FIA needs to ensure drivers slow appropriately. It’s something drivers just can’t police themselves unless they’re extremely conscientious in the cockpit.
Señor Sjon
7th October 2024, 9:56
It was 3 tenths for a whole sector for a single yellow and 5 tenths for a double yellow. Insane. Later that became the mini-sectors. In Bianchi’s case, due to the track deteriorating, he could never set faster sector times, so he didn’t reduce enough speed for the conditions.
f1andrea
5th October 2024, 11:16
100% correct
Tristan
5th October 2024, 12:46
Despicably tasteless.
Coventry Climax
5th October 2024, 13:44
That’s a matter of perspective.
The most despicable, as far as I’m concerned, is that technically, it’s peanuts to equip all the cars with a system that’s remotely operated and prevents them from going faster than a set speed at any specific section of a circuit. And that’s what the FiA should have implemented. A long time ago already.
It’s the same for all and impossible to circumvent, therefor safe, fair and impossible to cheat upon. Immediately does away with the need for safety cars, virtual or physical.
instead, the FiA comes up with half-baked solutions again.
Nick T.
6th October 2024, 16:50
Still bitter over Lando, huh?
MichaelN
5th October 2024, 13:54
No, absolutely not.
That is ignoring the fact that the F1 race director had – at the start of 2014 – put a specific number on the FIA Code’s requirement to “be prepared to stop” under double yellow flags. Bianchi, in his rookie season, followed the letter of the instructions given to him.
Was it a violation of the Code to be going over 200 km/h under double yellows. Absolutely.
Was that something condoned – again, in writing – by the F1 race director? Also, absolutely.
Whiting should have been sacked the moment he came up with these numbers in Australia. Failing that, he had no business being anywhere near a circuit again after the race in Japan.
Unfortunately, the lengthy post-accident time before Bianchi’s eventual demise, coupled with him being a rookie at a backmarker team, made it relatively “easy” for the FIA to shift all the blame on him.
Tristan
6th October 2024, 0:07
Well said, thank you.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
5th October 2024, 20:00
no, it was the guys who let the tractor on the course during that weather with cars on circuit. Nobody would have been killed had they realized done the homework/risk-hazard analysis to keep those things off the circuit.
Ultimately it’s the FIA’s fault Jules died.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
5th October 2024, 22:15
Indeed, cause they’re afraid to let a stopped car against the barriers, they put a tractor instead; dare I say bianchi would’ve survived had he hit the car.
Mr Jonathan J Davies
5th October 2024, 21:23
You are factualy wrong, before we even get started on morals. Maybe have a think?
Nick T.
6th October 2024, 16:49
What am I factually wrong on? The VSC mistake. Other than that, it was solely his fault for not slowing enough. Had he killed a marshal, no one would be blaming the culture of now slowing enough for yellows. And how does morality come into the equation. Maybe you’re thinking about compassion or empathy. Maybe have a think?
ajpennypacker (@ajpennypacker)
9th October 2024, 20:44
I absolutely agree. I came here to say it. It’s been massively frustrating to see people frantically search for culprits everywhere except in the driver who failed to slow down as much as the yellow flags required, and lost control of his car. H
F1 has had all sorts of vehicles on track in race conditions, in fact if you look at old races you can see DNF’d cars left on track, often really close to the racing line. This incident was a combination of bad luck, and the mistake of a driver who simply wouldn’t slow down as required.
The other side of this story that never gets discussed is how reckless and dangerous it is for a driver to do what Bianchi did. 9/10 it’s probably someone else that gets hurt, not the driver. He could have plowed through the marshalls, or hurt them in some way.
Incidentally, the regulatory changes that resulted are indicative of the culprits in that tragedy:
1. Double yellow flags, created to make it even clearer that drivers need to slow down, which Bianchi refused to do
2. Halo… a protective measure that was probably long overdue.
RandomMallard
5th October 2024, 9:26
I still feel the culture around yellow and particularly double-yellow flags is at times unsafe, and occasionally bordering on unacceptable. Yellow means slow down, double yellow means slow down and be prepared to stop. There was an enormous accident at this year’s Spa 24 Hours due to drivers ignoring yellow flags. And only one of those cars passing at speed got a penalty (the Porsche that actually collectes the Ferrari), and it was only a drive through. I get that drivers never want to lose too much time slowing for yellows, but if we want to avoid every incident automatically becoming a SC or VSC, the drivers are gonna have to start obeying yellow flags properly.
Jere (@jerejj)
5th October 2024, 10:31
I couldn’t agree more & more specifically, regarding the linked incident, the blue car driver had more than enough time to notice the stopped car, not to mention the double yellows, yet he still tried to pass it at full speed & tight angle, which ultimately backfired.
What a stupid attempt that was never going to work.
The drivers before him didn’t respect double-yellows either, though, so all of them losing their racing licenses wouldn’t have necessarily being entirely unjustified.
Tristan
5th October 2024, 12:48
And yet, did you see the comments about Norris not having what it takes to win the WDC when he did?
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
5th October 2024, 22:19
True, can’t have it both ways, personally I would’ve finished the lap in those circumstances, because by slowing down he got the worst case scenario, instead maybe could’ve gone ahead by not respecting them, and then dealth with penalty later.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
5th October 2024, 22:19
dealt*
Nick T.
6th October 2024, 16:58
Yet no one has said Norris obeying or not obeying yellows has anything to do with his lackluster performance this season.
Jere (@jerejj)
5th October 2024, 10:29
A great & insightful article, not to mention even somewhat sad reading through everything, especially Brundle’s quotes & other coincidental references.
“One day, somebody’s going to end up underneath that tractor – it really terrifies me.” – If only he knew how perfectly these words would age in a little over 16 years or even the ones during the 2014 race in a matter of seconds.
The 1998 German GP words were already haunting, given that this particular race happened only less than four years after his own wet Suzuka close-call.
Ultimately, the 1994 race close-call should’ve already served as a reminder & caused permanent precautionary actions regarding the sole usage of local yellows for recovery vehicle-marshal actions on runoff areas or even within track limits, & the coincidence of both 1994 & 2014 incidents happening at Dunlop is also haunting.
To add a few other similar close encounters, the 2007 European GP at Nurburgring featured a multi-car pileup at T1, with a recovery vehicle entering the runoff area & Hamilton even having a marginal touch with it a little over 7 years before, & Sutil in the 2014 German GP after the last corner, albeit offline, but still, not to mention only about 2 months & a quarter before the eventual tragedy involving such a vehicle, so race control had simply been playing with safety for too long, which inevitably backfired in the long-term, given people can’t be forever lucky that leaving things up to chance always workout without a failure.
For that matter, while the similar 2022 Japanese GP situation should’ve never arisen, which was partly the recovery vehicle operator’s fault for entering the trackside before race control permission, Gasly’s excessive situational speed for red-flag status was equally unacceptable.
At least, he acknowledged this afterwards with a calmer mind.
I still don’t blame him for the initial outrage, given the similar circumstances to what happened 8 years prior.
Gerson
5th October 2024, 11:22
It also happened in that infamous Brazil 2003 race, when Michael Schumacher crashed in the Curva do Sol while they were recovering the cars of Montoya and Pizzonia.
Jere (@jerejj)
5th October 2024, 12:27
Good catch
Red Andy (@red-andy)
5th October 2024, 14:39
It wasn’t a coincidence, but a disaster waiting to happen. Given how topical safety was in 1994 it’s remarkable that more wasn’t done to prevent a repeat.
Owen Smart (@smartez)
5th October 2024, 18:31
2014 German Grand Prix, lap 47, Kvyat’s car is being recovered with a tractor. Martin makes a comment about his Suzuka crash. Says it scares him because “if a single seater goes underneath one of those things”… then gets interrupted by a radio message.
5 races later was the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
5th October 2024, 22:21
Wow, that’s almost as close a warning as it gets.
hrvoje zecevic
5th October 2024, 10:52
and don’t forget maria vilotta, also tragic finish after very bizzare accident driving marussia.
Martin Elliott
5th October 2024, 11:22
The whole culture of FIA safety is archaic compared the say Major Hazard Industries.
As said, rhe Panel Summary Report was published. No Panel report has been published since, Only redacted Press Releases.
For example, Billy Monger’s accident, though National, was usurped by FIA. No report was issued. A major charge to ALL Formula Cars resulted. Addition of Intrusion Prevention testing (not just impact).
Typical FIA identify one problem and make a prescriptive fix. Not assessed against other Hazards and benefits AND Drawbacks.
The Bianchi report had many recommendations, but only the easy procedural ones seem to have happened. Any others addressed. We do not know because no follow up implementation reports were given, such as the connection of control and braking systems, or a holistic identification of drivers and others Hazards and Risk. That has been required for operatives in Hazardous Industries for decades.
Ibex
6th October 2024, 13:33
Since Jean Todt took over the FIA’s attitude to safety changed completely. Helmet research which Max Mosley said would be shared with other sports was not shared, and proceedings of the FIA’s safety committee suddenly became a closely guarded secret.
As for the 2014 Japanese GP, the FIA’s own rules said it could not be started in those conditions. (The medical helicopter could not fly and it had not been shown in advance the ambulance could get to the hospital within the time limit.) The FIA broke their own rules. Later their report argued the (seriously botched, even farcical) slow transfer of Bianchi to the hospital made no difference to his outcome. Even if that was the case (others with relevant experience & training disagreed), the completely overlooked the fact that the FIA chose to break their own longstanding safety rules. If they had been followed Bianchi wouldn’t have suffered fatal injuries that day as the race would not have started.
Chris Horton
5th October 2024, 11:51
RIP Jules.
Hard to believe this was ten years ago already. I’m one of the generation of fans who grew up thinking there wouldn’t be any more fatalities after Imola 1994.
The sport mustn’t lose sight of the pursuit of safety. There are still areas which can be improved without losing the essence of the sport.
Leksa (@leksa)
5th October 2024, 11:57
I think there are two big risk factors that probably will result the next F1 fatality, and it’s not the question of “if” but “when”.
The first one is a similar situation to van ‘t Hoff´, that is, there’s a stationary car sideways which gets T-boned full speed. We already got a glimpse of it with Russell’s car bouncing back to the track at Albert Park this year. It can happen anywhere, even on the run-off area (like Hubert who was hit on the run-off area by Correa after the initial impact to the wall).
Another scary thing happens regularly during qualifying and practice when drivers doing their hot laps pass slowly-going cars. One misjudgement could cause a huge airplane crash. Obviously the halo will help if a car is launched into the catchfence. But more worringly, such drastic difference in speed would result something similar to Billy Monger, who had his legs amputated. And an impact from behind on the other hand can result a spinal fracture.
The second risk is, as Grosjean’s crash showed, fire. Had Romain been knocked unconscious, that could have been the next F1 fatality. Or if Zhou’s car had catch fire at Silverstone, him being trapped inside the car, the outcome could have been much worse. Obviously there are fire marshals around the track, but a situation can occur where they are not close enough or fast enough when a fire breaks loose.
Jere (@jerejj)
5th October 2024, 12:30
@leksa Agreed & regarding the Russell incident in Melbourne, ultimately the only way to avoid such situations at that particular section or at least minimize the likelihood would be only using tarmac runoff surface at the very least since tarmac slows down more effectively compared to gravel, although moving the tyre barrier/catch fencing a little further away from the road edge is also possible, given the available space behind, but the former action at the very least would suffice.
Maldonado’s similar outcome in the 2012 race shows that only these aspects are relevant rather than anything else.
Coventry Climax
5th October 2024, 14:28
The run-off area is by definition an off race-line, dirty part of the circuit, so tarmac slowing down better than gravel is very debateable, to say the least. And what about in the wet, e.g.?
It would be best to prevent cars bouncing back from the fence. Solutions to that are aplenty, but will depend on track circumstances and space available, and may therefor even differ between corners of the same circuit.
Jere (@jerejj)
5th October 2024, 14:59
The part about tarmac slowing down better than gravel is a reference to what Charlie Whiting said in 2017 based on all investigation & analysis done on these matters back in the day that ultimately led to tarmac runoffs becoming more & more common over the years, especially since around mid-2000s, so barely debatable.
Coventry Climax
5th October 2024, 16:59
Sorry @jerejj, but that sounds like it’s true because it’s in the holy script or the newspaper. Whose holy script and whose newspaper? The FiA is not know as being either of them and certainly not know for always telling the objective truth, but rather the truth that’s most convenient to them.
I’m sure it’s easier to brake on tarmac than on gravel, but only when you’re on four wheels still, and either moving forward or rearward. Sideways makes no difference. Then we’ve had these launching ramps known as sausage kerbs for a while. You can put the wheels on handbrake, but that won’t help you when you’re in the air.
Then there’s things like changing insights and new technologies, but most of all: What I said is that it might very well require different solutions for different situations and different corners, which is about the opposite from the FiA’s ‘best average solution’.
If this is not a debate, then what is?
Jere (@jerejj)
6th October 2024, 15:27
Coventry Climax – Some sausage kerbs or bumps may still exist, but that particular Albert Park corner exit has never had these, although generally, I get what you mean about everything.
@fletchuk – Indeed & more specifically regarding the last paragraph, race control should simply make an exception whenever fire is involved by always permitting a marshal to enter with an extinguisher immediately, even if not all drivers on track have passed that point yet, especially when a stranded car is already offlline & on a straight(-ish) section near a marked hole, not to mention sessions are red-flagged or otherwise neutralized in such situations anywhere, so zero risk of getting hit by any bypassing driver.
Fletch (@fletchuk)
5th October 2024, 17:11
Agree with all of these.
If it happens as a result of cars deliberately driving slow due to tire prep, track positioning etc then the FIA will have serious questions to answer as this has been happening for years now and is a direct result of their rules.
Fire is scary one. I can imagine some awkward analysis if it’s found that the halo impeded extraction causing a fatality. Generally people struggle with gray-areas and trade-offs – ie lives saved vs deaths caused.
The other issue around fire is the time it takes these days for the marshalls to intervene due to the restrictions entering a hot-track. In Sargeant’s final crash he was left in a burning car for a LONG time without assistance – thankfully the fire didn’t develop before he got out by himself. In Grosjean’s crash you can see in the video footage a marshall with a firebottle just standing still. Thankfully Grosjean wasn’t incapacitated and was able to get himself out.
MacLeod (@macleod)
7th October 2024, 8:31
The accident where Hulkenberg ends upside down on the barrier and a fire started… He could hear the fear of Nico.
David BR (@david-br)
5th October 2024, 14:29
My thoughts go out to Bianchi’s families and friends, these anniversaries must be painful.
I don’t think you can blame the driver in this kind of incident. It was a mixture of inexperience (I recall Hamilton going through the same corner gingerly), pressure for results and above all a disaster waiting to happen: dangerous trackside recovery equipment in a situation where another car losing control and arriving at the same point was highly likely (Brundle’s comments echoed what I was thinking during the race: it just happens repeatedly in wet weather conditions, cars aquaplane in virtually the same spot and take virtually the same trajectory). F1 does seem to have learnt from Bianchi’s terrible misfortune. Halo, VSC, far more caution in the rain and when recovering vehicles.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
5th October 2024, 22:30
I’d say over-caution in the rain, depriving of races like spa 2021, while suzuka 2014 would’ve been fine if not for the tractor on track.
Not to mention, like you said, the VSC is all it takes to prevent a repeat.
David BR (@david-br)
6th October 2024, 21:29
@esploratore1 The problems seems to be the spray generated making visibility almost zero. I miss the wet weather races too though, almost always among the best of the season.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
5th October 2024, 14:36
The FIA’s accident panel report will always be tainted by the fact that it was essentially a follow-up to an initial report authored by Charlie Whiting. It is obvious why both reports were quick to dismiss the suggestion that the Sutil incident should have been covered by a safety car, and shamefully tried to shift the blame to Bianchi himself.
It remains one of F1’s darkest hours, not just for the accident itself, but for the way the sport conducted itself in the aftermath. Rather than scrutinising what went wrong in an open and transparent fashion, its first instinct was to cover its own backside. At the very least, Whiting should have been quietly pensioned off at the end of the 2014 season.
Coventry Climax
5th October 2024, 17:13
I agree, except there’s a bit of nuance to the final, Whiting comment. The thing you point out is that not being open and transparent about it hampered the investigation and learning from it, or at least verifyably show you’ve learned from it. Being retired means there’s no chance of ever showing you have truly learned something just as much as treating it all behind closed doors.
Tristan
6th October 2024, 4:10
Interesting take given how celebrated he was.
Tommy C (@tommy-c)
6th October 2024, 1:00
Bianchi’s accident pains me more than any other fatality in F1. The cars were safe in 2014. The circuits too. This one was completely preventable on so many levels. I remember seeing Sutil aquaplane off and thought well this will be red flagged now and that’s probably the end of the race. Aquaplaning cars with wet tyres is a good sign the conditions are undrivable. I will never understand how the marshals had the green light to enter the circuit with a recovery vehicle no less. Motor racing is inherently dangerous and drivers understand that, but this one was so incredibly needless. The only positive if you can call it that is that the VSC and halo have more than proved their worth in the years since. I often think about Bianchi and wonder where he’d be now. In an alternate universe I like to think he’d have won the 2018 drivers championship for Ferrari.
Obster
6th October 2024, 14:27
Great thorough article!
Bleu (@bleu)
7th October 2024, 14:39
I don’t downplay that Bianchi was going too fast under yellows, but it was general problem for all drivers at that era. I have never seen a comparison on speeds used by Bianchi compared to other drivers going through that point. Bianchi was driving just ahead of Sutil when the German crashed (this can be seen from the replays) and the safety car was called about a minute after Bianchi’s crash. So it is easy to say that every driver went through the corner under double yellows.
But as there is no comparison on speeds it makes me think Bianchi wasn’t even fastest driver through that corner. He was just the only one to lose control of the car and the outcome was fatal.