This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Louis Salom passed away in crash

As long as there's enough speed, there can always be freak accidents, and no amount of changes could prevent all of them... except less speed. But cap top-speed to 100 mph, and who's going to watch racing. Also worth noting, GP bikes are a lot faster than M2s, and if nobody had complained before of dangerous conditions, I wouldn't fault the track. Or actually anybody. I don't like the American way of always trying to blame somebody for something bad that happens. Sometimes the best action is to do something about it, and try to prevent the same accidents in other tracks. But hindsight analysis drives me crazy. If there's any indication of negligence after complaints, other incidents, etc., then by all means lay it on the track, or whoever is responsible. But freak accidents have been and will continue to be part of the sport. And as far as I know, all riders and drivers know such risks. And they're at the lowest they've ever been, and continue getting better, even though speeds haven't reduced that much. Another fact is you just cannot make a track perfect for all venues, and it's financially impossible to make dedicated tracks for each one, so there will continue to be higher risks than optimal for motorcycles for the reason somebody already said: car races have priority because they're much more plentiful, and generate more revenue.

My bottom line is maybe designers can come up with different kind of barriers that are friendly to both cars and motorcycle racers. Like softer initially and harder behind, like when hit by a heavier car. But a lighter, softer rider could survive even at 200 mph. The problem with this particular accident (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that unfortunately, the bike was following exactly the same line as LS, and would have still hit it dead on regardless of barrier system, no? And there's no amount of changes that could have prevented that. Again, one of those freak accidents. But we'll see what improvements happen after this tragedy. Have a good one everybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Gaz, i disagree with how this incident is now being dissected into false increments particularly focused on 'cause' instead of effect. Why he crashed is of little relevance in my opinion buddy. You have to imagine the worst, like say a stuck throttle. The question is: is there anything that can scrub speed at the margin of the track? The answer is no. Period.

According to Rossi, they'd been talking about this corner for 6 years. Look at the aerial view, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that's a bad turn. Why haven't there been many incidents? Maybe one of the reasons is the riders were more careful through there because the wall was so close and they were aware it was all paved? I don't know. I don't understand the bit about "missing the gravel". There is no gravel in the corner. The gravel starts down the turn. But the impact zone is paved. You seem to be requiring a rider to crash already into the turn.

Content Warning: Look ....... (.)(.)
 
Last edited:
Not entirely Jums as there is gravel - https://www.google.com.au/maps/plac...150ed08bef7e2b48!8m2!3d41.5682267!4d2.2571491

Salom missedt he gravel as he had fallen extremely early in the piece, almost as if he had fallen on the straight leading into the turn.

As Krop has said elsewhere, there is no record of a motorcycle accident at the spot where Salom crashed (sure, first time for everything) and only 6 in 10 years with the others finishing in the gravel

Sure it can be said that the wall being square on is a danger (which it is) but at the same point, many tracks have walls in places that are dangerous if the same system is used but where there is little risk due to track design

Until it is known what caused Salom to crash (could he have had a medical episode for example?) then we need to hold back a little on the tarmac side (I do not like it either), but as I have said elsewhere we do need to go hard on the fact that there were 4 rows of tyres behind the airfence whereas a couple of layers of airfence and no tyres would have behaved differently

No, there shouldn't be tarmac runoff going out to the length of the barriers. What caused him to crash is irrelevant to whether or not tarmac runoff should be there or not for motorcycle racing. It's there precisely because F1 was intent on creating a way to keep drivers from actually being penalized for mistakes, and also they claim to prevent cars from flipping if they turn sideways and submerge in the gravel. But the former is the primary driving force.

Having a history, or lack thereof of motorcycle crashes in this corner is irrelevant as it's common sense that you don't want to be sliding on tarmac if you are a rider since you're not going to stop anywhere near as fast. Gravel is no picnic, but between the two, it's the better option. The Hopkins crash at Assen should have been clue enough why tarmac runoff is godawful for riders. That was 8 years ago and that this has persisted tells you how ignorant Dorna in particular is to it. But wait who am I kidding, last year proved they don't give a .... about rider safety anyway.
 
. I don't like the American way of always trying to blame somebody for something bad that happens...

You made a good post except this bit, WTF?

I was not aware of this stereotype. Americans are know for looking to blame something when analyzing a tragedy?

Content Warning: Look ....... (.)(.)
 
Absolutely Jums, the impact zone is paved but as Krop has said, there has never been a motorcycle incident that has impacted that particular piece of fence and that is why, the cause is important as it may become explainable as to why Salom fell.

Of course, your point that he should never have impacted the wall is incredibly valid as with gravel at that point, in likelihood the bike would have hit the wall but we would have stopped (some good tests in the video I posted elsewhere). The question that is now being asked (and may likely never be answered to everyone's satisfaction) is whether the wall should be there or whether the tarmac should be at that point (remember, this is a dual use car/bike circuit and that circuits make more money from cars)

To me there are two distinct parameters that need to be looked at - cause and effect.

I will stand by my opinion that if there were no tyres behind the airfence and that we had a minimum 2 or 3 layer airfence, the bike would not have bounced back as additional layers of airfence would have absorbed the impact rather than acted as a solid wall as do tyres.

The cause of the fall does need to be looked at as well given that I recall treading some chatter about track surface and there is also Rossi's comments regarding 'something failing on the bike' (which whilst possibly poor taste, he is closer and may have a valid input). If a component failed on the bike that caused Salom to fall, that also needs to be identified given the outcomes as no doubt it contributed (as has been said, could a throttle have jammed).

There are a lot of aspects to this incident that have each individually led to the situation whereby a tremendous talent is no longer with us and whilst yes, the wall played a part let us look at the full picture as there may be many aspects that have combined and let us fix all of them
 
You made a good post except this bit, WTF?

I was not aware of this stereotype. Americans are know for looking to blame something when analyzing a tragedy?

Content Warning: Look ....... (.)(.)

Yes, I've read it in multiple places that Americans look more to assign blame to someone.
 
No, there shouldn't be tarmac runoff going out to the length of the barriers. What caused him to crash is irrelevant to whether or not tarmac runoff should be there or not for motorcycle racing. It's there precisely because F1 was intent on creating a way to keep drivers from actually being penalized for mistakes, and also they claim to prevent cars from flipping if they turn sideways and submerge in the gravel. But the former is the primary driving force.


And that is why I like T1 at Phillip Island as a good example of tarmac/gravel/tarmac.

It is designed to allow a little bit of a 'wide' run or mistake to be caught before one hits the gravel and then we go back to tarmac to allow braking once speed has been wiped. Of course it does have far more room available and is a higher speed corner but (not sure if you know) the tarmac was put in place after a few cars and bikes (WSBK support race, ended in fatality) actually went across the entire grass verge between T1 and southern loop into Stoners and there have been no issues since of which I am aware.



Having a history, or lack thereof of motorcycle crashes in this corner is irrelevant as it's common sense that you don't want to be sliding on tarmac if you are a rider since you're not going to stop anywhere near as fast. Gravel is no picnic, but between the two, it's the better option. The Hopkins crash at Assen should have been clue enough why tarmac runoff is godawful for riders. That was 8 years ago and that this has persisted tells you how ignorant Dorna in particular is to it. But wait who am I kidding, last year proved they don't give a .... about rider safety anyway.

It certainly isn't irrelevant but it does show the corner as low risk does it not?

Unfortunately, many circuits and businesses are not flush with money and as such may not have the money to fix or remove all risks, and then of course what may be a risk for bikes, may not be for cars and maybe action taken to correct a bike risk may increase the car risk and so forth. Unfortunately (and somewhat distastefully) there has to be a compromise of sorts (rumble strips for example) in terms of minimising or reducing the risks that will work for both or all users of the circuit.

IMO only, but the Nascar/IndyCar type of walls are fantastic with their impact absorption and these should be rolled out to more circuits (from a car view) but in terms of bikes they would be little improvement.

Run-off is an issue as the circuits have finite land available and many were designed well before speeds starting hitting 350kmh or so, or before acceleration allowed speeds 30 or 40kmh greater within a short space than they did 20 years ago.

Is the solution to slow the bikes down (I am sure people do not want slower GP's) if/where the circuits cannot keep up as to adjust a circuit can take a lengthy amount of time during which the circuit can have no income which then means paying fort he alterations becomes a battle in itself and potentially leads to other areas of degradation (public facilities)

It is a battle, and has no simplistic answer within the economical world, although within the emotional world the answer is .... easy
 
Gaz, I really don't understand why cause is relevant. Let's just say his brakes failed, or he passed out, the throttle got stuck, etc. I'm using these examples because they're extreme. In other words let's say the worst happened, does that corner provide adequate surface to scrub speed? No.

Here is why 10 layers of air fence would have made zero difference: because nothing slowed down the RIDER.

Why did he crash? Irrelevant.
Assume a crash!
From this point the question is:
How can we absorb the energy of the rider from a 'crash'? Scrub speed.

So then, how can we scrub speed given the run off distance we have to work with:
1. Pavement?
2. Gravel?
3. Other?

The bike has more momentum, but who cares about the bike, let's assume the bike will hit the barrier, however, the gravel is there to scrub speed from the rider so that in the event the rider reaches the barrier or bike, the speed of impact is mitigated.

What possible 'cause' changes this equation or rationale buddy?
 
Last edited:
Gaz, I really don't understand why cause is relevant. Let's just say his brakes failed, or he passed out, the throttle got stuck, etc. I'm using these examples because they're extreme. In other words let's say the worst happened, does that corner provide adequate surface to scrub speed? No.

Here is why 10 layers of air fence would have made zero difference: because nothing slowed down the rider.

Why did he crash? Irrelevant.
Assume a crash!
From this point the question is:
How can we absorb the energy from a 'crash'? Scrub speed.

So then, how can we scrub speed given the run off distance we have to work with:
1. Pavement?
2. Gravel?

The bike has more momentum, but who cares about the bike, let's assume the bike will hit the barrier, however, the gravel is there to scrub speed from the rider so that in the event the rider reaches the barrier or bike, the speed of impact is mitigated.

What possible 'cause' changes this equation or rationale?

The death is the effect Jums.

The cause is critical and as you have used a stuck throttle let us use the Stoner incident from last year.

The effect was the crash which caused him to impact the barriers that were placed outside of the wall in order to avoid him hitting that godawful armco barrier. These barriers actually propelled him airborne and caused the broken leg and other subsequent injuries. In this aspect, it is a circuit safety issue.

The cause however was the stuck throttle. If the throttle did not stick, he would not have crashed and as such, you need to identify the cause of the crash in order to take the corrective action to stop or minimise future occurrences of that crash. In this aspect (and if I recall correctly) HRC admitted fault and modified their throttle for future races and so far, I have not heard of another occurrence of the same issue.

Both are relevant, one caused the crash, the other caused the injury but without the first, the second does not happen

If one is concerned about all aspects of safety and wanting all walls protected, why do we not have any pit lane wall with barrier protection (aside from concrete/armco)?

Again, with regards to the tarmac, we have no argument as i do not like it, simple but it is/was there and so the issue than becomes the further protection and the cause of why the bike rebounded, which I feel was 100% the tyres behind the airfence as when you see bikes go into an airfence itself, it gets caught up and generally does not bounce back.

As painful as it is, bike racing is a minor component of many circuits income and as such, like all businesses they tend to focus on their prime income sources, which in this case is likely cars and thus, often bikes come secondary which is where the FIM should grow some

Let us also not forget that it has been stated that there were no concerns with the tarmac runoff as there had been no incidents at that part of the track mentioned by riders until now. Why?



Edit. Jums, if you haven't already, check the video I posted from Jarno Zaffrelli - is a brilliant video of cause/effect of slides and it is clear, gravel is better - it has tests of bikes sliding and even without this weekend's sadness, it is a damn good video talking of track and rider equipment safety (airbags etc). It does support your view on Tarmac so I am not trying to change that view as I agree (prefer gravel myself and say to any car driver that if you are in the gravel, then you are offline are you not)
 
Last edited:
You made a good post except this bit, WTF?
It's the sad truth man. Not apples to apples, but follow me. Let's look at most school shootings, for instance. Parents blaming from the schools to the nannies to the guns (like if they fired themselves). Always trying to blame something/someone other than the reality. In this case if somebody's at fault are the parents. In the accident's case, it wasn't the track or Dorna. It was the riders who thought that curve was dangerous and never voiced their opinions at a safety meeting. But in BOTH situations, there are accidents that just cannot be blamed on anybody because the 'alarm' signals were just not there. Otherwise there would not be NO accidents in the world, right? THAT was my point:D.

That was 8 years ago and that this has persisted tells you how ignorant Dorna in particular is to it. But wait who am I kidding, last year proved they don't give a .... about rider safety anyway.
I want to understand your statement better. Did riders complain about lack of safety and Dorna did nothing? Because after reading several posts in 2 threads, the consensus seems to be that RIDERS don't complain where they're supposed to (safety meetings). How is Dorna supposed to impose changes if riders/teams don't agree with them? If riders/teams complain about something and nothing gets done by Dorna, then you'd be correct. And something has to change to prevent that from continue happening. Just curious what's the real situation with safety, because I didn't know until now that riders are so disinterested in their own safety by not attending those meetings. That's just plain stupid IMO.
 
Having a history, or lack thereof of motorcycle crashes in this corner is irrelevant as it's common sense that you don't want to be sliding on tarmac if you are a rider since you're not going to stop anywhere near as fast. Gravel is no picnic, but between the two, it's the better option. The Hopkins crash at Assen should have been clue enough why tarmac runoff is godawful for riders. That was 8 years ago and that this has persisted tells you how ignorant Dorna in particular is to it. But wait who am I kidding, last year proved they don't give a .... about rider safety anyway.

Didn't Hopkins crash in gravel?

Have checked the video and there is a large amount of gravel present (assuming we are talking the same incident).
 
I agree with this America loves to pass blame. Look at how many stupid lawsuits win on the regular here.
Ah, I agree there are many frivolous lawsuits that become famous, however I didn’t know Americans as a culture 'blamed' .... for blame's sake. I may be wrong or out of touch bro. Actually I thought American culture was known for chasing the "American Dream" through the American staple of self-reliance.



It's the sad truth man. Not apples to apples, but follow me. Let's look at most school shootings, for instance. Parents blaming from the schools to the nannies to the guns (like if they fired themselves). Always trying to blame something/someone other than the reality. In this case if somebody's at fault are the parents. In the accident's case, it wasn't the track or Dorna. It was the riders who thought that curve was dangerous and never voiced their opinions at a safety meeting. But in BOTH situations, there are accidents that just cannot be blamed on anybody because the 'alarm' signals were just not there. Otherwise there would not be NO accidents in the world, right? THAT was my point:D.



Judging American culture because people and judges allow lawyers (the real problem) to exploit the justice system with frivolous lawsuits is like saying Americans are like the Kardashians.

People actually don't sue as much as we think, it's lawyers looking to sign up people to sue deep pockets by exploiting the arcane justice system. If one tries to sue someone or something on their own, one will see how impossible it is. But if a lawyer finds out you fell at a rich business, they will contact you to sue the business on your behalf. They get 80% of the judgement. Regular people would never be able to sue on their own. I think perhaps this is where this stereotype comes from.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t know Americans as a culture 'blamed' .... for blame's sake. I may be wrong or out of touch bro. Actually I thought American culture was known for chasing the "American Dream" through the American staple of self-reliance.

No dude, American's ARE seen as having to assign blame way more than other cultures, by those other cultures. Also often seen as assigning blame in all the wrong places. Other cultures are seen to have a much more c'est la vie, som nom na (that's life, that's how water flows) outlook.
 
No dude, American's ARE seen as having to assign blame way more than other cultures, by those other cultures. Also often seen as assigning blame in all the wrong places. Other cultures are seen to have a much more c'est la vie, som nom na (that's life, that's how water flows) outlook.
Maybe that's why all those other cultures are .....




:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Maybe that's why all those other cultures are .....




:)

I think it has to do with the age of the cultures... US culture is going through things for the first or second time that other, older, cultures have seen repeated throughout their long histories many times. Seeing issues for the first or second time you tend to think, 'ah, here's what's wrong, I can fix this.' Seeing the same issue for the 100th time you tend to think, 'ah, this is how the world works, I can't fix human nature so, c'est la vie.'
 
I think it has to do with the age of the cultures... US culture is going through things for the first or second time that other, older, cultures have seen repeated throughout their long histories many times. Seeing issues for the first or second time you tend to think, 'ah, here's what's wrong, I can fix this.' Seeing the same issue for the 100th time you tend to think, 'ah, this is how the world works, I can't fix human nature so, c'est la vie.'

Perhaps. But I don't think this modern frankly undeserved American stereotype is accurate. Think America just 50 years ago. Leaders in industry, innovation, self government, standard of living, self-reliance, etc. In such a vast land, you have to pull yourself up by boot straps. I think much of the negative foreign view comes from a bit of ignorance and the modern storylines that make headlines. Another reason may be other cultures have beat down by their harsh governments so long they have resignation, what you call "c'est la vie". I'm also aware of our flaws as a nation, probably more than your typical middle-class person actually. But the truth is most people around the world want to be here. Perhaps this "blaming" stereotype, implying we don't take responsibility, comes from the modern era of sensationalism. Most Americans I know take their lumps and suffer quietly. I'm actually the loud mouth. It would be a mistake to judge a nation on blowhards like me.
 
Last edited:
The reaction of Lorenzo as he learnt of the passing of Salom was apparently caught on camera as he was due at a press conference



This conveys the emotion felt by the competitors (it is said that Lorenzo and Salom did used to travel together as both from Mallorca)

Bugs the .... out of me though that he had to find out whilst seemingly at a press conference or debrief
 
Perhaps. But I don't think this modern frankly undeserved American stereotype is accurate. Think America just 50 years ago. Leaders in industry, innovation, self government, standard of living, etc. I think much of the negative foreign view comes from a bit of ignorance and the modern storylines that make headlines. I'm also aware of our flaws as a nation, probably more than your typical middle-class person actually. But the truth is most people around the world want to be here. Perhaps this "blaming" stereotype, implying we don't take responsibility, comes from the modern era of sensationalism. Most Americans I know take their lumps and suffer quietly. I'm actually the loud mouth. It would be a mistake to judge a nation on blowhards like me.

This is not an indictment of individuals, it is a pervasive attitude directed towards the US culture, not its people - kind of like a rational discussion of Islam vs individual Muslin nations or individual persons.

50 yrs is 1/5 of US culture's existence. 50 yrs is 1/50 of the other cultures (ish). Taking responsibility is not the issue. It is the realisation that all the 'good' of the US culture of the post war era is just a blip in a continually repeating cycle of good and bad and that there is no choice or policy which will lead humankind to an eternal cultural Eden. Older cultures have grasped this salient fact hence the 'that's how water flows' attitude. American culture is still young enough to naively believe that policy choices can affect the cyclic nature of history over longer time frames, hence the culturally pervasive attitude that, 'we can fix this', and the rest of the world's perception the you are assigning blame.