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

Suzuka 8hr 2015

Which is my point, Jum. There were/are calls for less safety on here. If you agree that the aprons aren't safe, then haven't you got what you wished for?

Without analysing every single corner with modified run-off, it's hard to make any call. But yes, there appears to be some unintended consequences of allowing riders low risk for running off.

But calls for less safety (given the aprons aren't a safety measure) are dumb.
Who is asking for less safe tracks? I think you might have missed Lotus's point, but I'll defer to him to clarify. The paved run offs make the track safer? Or more convenient? If they make them safer, than they should immediately institute a rule that if the rider goes off the boundaries of the track (white line) then they must return only after the entire field has passed. Or like they do in some club racing, rider must move away from impact zones and may return only when the marshall waves them on. You get the meaning of what I'm suggesting?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Who is asking for less safe tracks? I think you might have missed Lotus's point, but I'll defer to him to clarify. The paved run offs make the track safer? Or more convenient? If they make them safer, than they should immediately institute a rule that if the rider goes off the boundaries of the track (white line) then they must return only after the entire field has passed. Or like they do in some club racing, rider must move away from impact zones and may return only when the marshall waves them on. You get the meaning of what I'm suggesting?



Jums, answering Dr No only for myself as I also alluded to less safety at tracks but essentially I agree with other points which is by removing the penalty of a minor error, one can almost be seen to encourage the 'hard at all costs' approach.

Nobody has issues with walls being removed or with track alignments being modified where a fallen bike/rider can come back across the track and so forth, but as with your thoughts I personally have an issue with the paved areas as there is now no penalty for one's over exuberance at specific turns.

Your suggestion outlined above is a practical approach that I have seen used but it also can have a consequence of additional safety issues by having a stopped or slow moving rider on the outside of an active corner. One way I have heard done is to add time at the end of a race for any rider (in the case I have heard it was car racing so the penalty was to the driver) who had left the confines oft he track which had been defined as the sealed tar surface bordered by the white line or rumble strip. The instruction was for marshalls to call in all instances where all 4 wheels of the car had ventured outside of the defined area and at the end of the race a time penalty of a few seconds per instance was applied. The problems it caused were that the race results were not finalised for some hours whilst all penalties etc were calculated but I can say that subsequent races in that category at the track saw far less off track excursions.

For bikes it would be as tough as the above car example but it is probably safer than having the slow bike off the side of the track although one alternative could be to have defined re-entry points and thus for riders to use those points (as at mugello/monza). to me, if they were to go this way with bikes I would suggest that the re-entry marking should be a minimum of 20 metres long and thus the rule would need to force riders to be in the marked area at all times else a further penalty should apply.

No idea if it is workable but given that we will see more and more gravel traps be removed, something does need to be done
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Why ask Mike, you're the Dr. No?

'LoL'


Given the state of safety at the time...

They just parked a crane on a wet hot track causing the death of a driver.

'sad'

Dr No doesn't have a medical degree.

And your second point verges on the idiotic. Are you seriously suggesting that safety standards and medical protocols are similar between 1978 and now?

But keep going, gotta score those Internet points!
 
Why ask Mike, you're the Dr. No?

'LoL'


Given the state of safety at the time...

They just parked a crane on a wet hot track causing the death of a driver.

'sad'

And didn't change the race start time even though they knew a typhoon was coming because Bernie didn't want the European TV schedules disturbed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Who is asking for less safe tracks? I think you might have missed Lotus's point, but I'll defer to him The paved run offs make the track safer? Or more convenient? If they make them safer, than they should immediately institute a rule that if the rider goes off the boundaries of the track (white line) then they must return only after the entire field has passed. Or like they do in some club racing, rider must move away from impact zones and may return only when the marshall waves them on. You get the meaning of what I'm suggesting?

Of course I get your point, and I largely agree. In that, riders shouldn't benefit from the removal of gravel traps. But such a severe penalty for just crossing the white line is too severe. It'd be a race direction nightmare...
But the solution is simple, just put back the bloody gravel. Motorcyle racing shouldn't have tocontort itself just so cars get better tv....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dr No doesn't have a medical degree.

And your second point verges on the idiotic. Are you seriously suggesting that safety standards and medical protocols are similar between 1978 and now?

But keep going, gotta score those Internet points!





I'll assume it's not a PHD in deductive reasoning either. Well no .... there have been improvements since 78, yet here we are, F1 making stupid decisions that are 'idiotic'. Crane in wet track decidedly in an impact zone. The safety standards could have called for bubble wrapping the entire circuit, but if you deploy a crane into the equation in this manner then exactly how the heck is the overall standard effective?

Any more comments on points that have whisked over your head buddy? You know, so I can respond in a way to rack up those Internet points.
 
Last edited:
A bit of cognitive dissonance there, JPS.

If Monza didn't have that stupid armco bottleneck (which was criticised by drivers) he probably wouldn't have shattered his legs. The organisers should have listened to the "safety .......".
Given the state of safety at that time and the almost complete lack of medical protocols, I find apportioning the blame to the medical care putting the cart before the horse.
His legs were shattered, I don't know how much the risk of embolism was increased by early operation...michealm??
I don't really know the details of his history but if he died in the first 24 hours he may have died from fat/bone marrow embolism rather than thromboembolism/blood clots to the lungs. The injuries make him prone to both, the operation gives further opportunity for fat embolism; hard to know whether the timing of the operation was involved in his demise, possibly not.
 
And didn't change the race start time even though they knew a typhoon was coming because Bernie didn't want the European TV schedules disturbed.
That's right. F1 tried to blame Bianchi by releasing the speeds through the corner, yet we learned he had slowed and that other riders had taken the corner in similar fashion, while some even faster. We simply can't put it all on the competitors because they're in the heat of battle. The League who is the entity to mind the safety for its participants must institution protocol and penalties that buffer the predictable interests of the competitors to take high risks.

I mentioned earlier I felt the League was complicit in Sic's riding, I've been contending this same point for Marquez. The League has its pressure also, to meet lucrative TV deals, so RD should be organized as an absolute independent body given the stakes when failures occur.
 
Last edited:
Of course I get your point, and I largely agree. In that, riders shouldn't benefit from the removal of gravel traps. But such a severe penalty for just crossing the white line is too severe. It'd be a race direction nightmare...
But the solution is simple, just put back the bloody gravel. Motorcyle racing shouldn't have tocontort itself just so cars get better tv....
WTF, then why are we arguing if we both agree on the same solution?
 
I don't really know the details of his history but if he died in the first 24 hours he may have died from fat/bone marrow embolism rather than thromboembolism/blood clots to the lungs. The injuries make him prone to both, the operation gives further opportunity for fat embolism; hard to know whether the timing of the operation was involved in his demise, possibly not.

Thanks, mm.
My understanding is that it was fat or marrow embolism. So given how bad his fractures were, it made me wonder which had higher risk of embolism; delaying the operation or further disturbing the fractures.
 
A bit of cognitive dissonance there, JPS.

If Monza didn't have that stupid armco bottleneck (which was criticised by drivers) he probably wouldn't have shattered his legs. The organisers should have listened to the "safety .......".
Given the state of safety at that time and the almost complete lack of medical protocols, I find apportioning the blame to the medical care putting the cart before the horse.
His legs were shattered, I don't know how much the risk of embolism was increased by early operation...michealm??

Not really Dr No.

I've argued elsewhere that the greatest improvement to driver safety in motor racing was the introduction of the carbon fiber chassis in 1981. The majority of fatal accidents in F1 had to do with structural deficiencies in chassis design as it related to strength of the chassis, component failures, or fuel lines spraying fuel in accidents. In many cases track design had little to do with the cause of death. It was all down to car design.

If Ronnie's crash was not in the Lotus 78, and was in the 1981 McLaren MP4, he would have walked away from the crash. Gilles Villeneuve was killed at Zolder partially because the aluminum honeycomb chassis that the 126C2 was built with could not withstand the sort of impact when he hit the rear of Jochen Mass at the Terlamenbocht Corner. Didier Pironi had his career ended a few months later in Hockenheim when he ran into the back of Alain Prost because of the chassis simply could not withstand massive impacts, and his legs were crushed. The reason Ferrari used the aluminum honeycomb was because Dr. Harvey Postlethwaite did not have enough time to design a carbon fiber chassis, so he modified the 126CK chassis from 1981 as best as he could.

Here's the main problem I have with safety is that some of the greatest feats of motor racing were great because they were done before safety became this overwhelming concern.

Imagine being Pedro Rodriguez and Jo Siffert in 1971, and turning in lap speeds of 160MPH at the old Spa circuit, all while hitting max speeds of 240MPH+ on the straights in the Porsche 917's? Racing was very much a sport for men with balls bigger than Jumkie. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Who is asking for less safe tracks? I think you might have missed Lotus's point, but I'll defer to him to clarify. The paved run offs make the track safer? Or more convenient? If they make them safer, than they should immediately institute a rule that if the rider goes off the boundaries of the track (white line) then they must return only after the entire field has passed. Or like they do in some club racing, rider must move away from impact zones and may return only when the marshall waves them on. You get the meaning of what I'm suggesting?

My point was more that if you want guys to stop abusing track limits, or stretching the boundaries, the quickest way to stop that would be to make them less safe.

RD does nothing to deter the volume of sheer stupidity on display every race weekend as you mention.

When the danger was real, the riders and drivers in most series understood to try and avoid putting competitors at risk. Now that the danger has been minimized so greatly, no one cares about safe riding. MM just uses the old battering ram approach for this reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
My point was more that if you want guys to stop abusing track limits, or stretching the boundaries, the quickest way to stop that would be to make them less safe.

RD does nothing to deter the volume of sheer stupidity on display every race weekend as you mention.

When the danger was real, the riders and drivers in most series understood to try and avoid putting competitors at risk. Now that the danger has been minimized so greatly, no one cares about safe riding. MM just uses the old battering ram approach for this reason.

I do understand your point, it's a version of the Dagger-sticking-out-of-the-steering-wheel.
So as rhetoric, no probs.

From your other post re: chassis integrity and its contribution to safety, all true enough, but safety has to take a holistic approach to be effective.
We could inform the riders/drivers at the briefing that there will be zero medical assistance at the track...similar rhetoric to the track safety argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Of course I get your point, and I largely agree. In that, riders shouldn't benefit from the removal of gravel traps. But such a severe penalty for just crossing the white line is too severe. It'd be a race direction nightmare...
But the solution is simple, just put back the bloody gravel. Motorcyle racing shouldn't have tocontort itself just so cars get better tv....

The shame or problem with the return of the gravel is that at many circuits, quite simply cars rule so the tarmac will always stay.

AT Phillip Island as an example, if gravel was returned it has been reported that many car clubs will no longer use the facility due to the damage caused by gravel and as such, PI will lose significant revenue which may mean that the facilities suffer and in the end, runs the risk of closing the circuit.

Fact is that at many circuits Bikes are not providing a significant economic benefit and as such will not be listened to when it comes to 'he who shouts loudest'. As a result we bike fans have to accept that we are the poor cousins and so we need to either accept the risks that tarmac outside oft he track confines brings, one we adapt with out own processes which personally I feel is a better option.

We must also not lose the memories of bikes being destroyed by a lowside fall often resulting in the bike being catapulted skywards or end over end as the result of the bike being grabbed in the gravel. Yes certainly the tarmac has risks with the change in riders attitude but it has also resulted in less damage to the bikes themselves (generally speaking as I am sure there are examples to the contrary) and the riders as they are now more likely to slide to a safe(er) stop than in years past where gravel often 'grabs' the rider or bike.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
and the riders as they are now more likely to slide to a safe(er) stop than in years past where gravel often 'grabs' the rider or bike.

Absolutely. Classic and graphic example of the danger posed by gravel was Toni Elias breaking his tibia at Assen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Good post, Gaz.
I thought the replacement of gravel traps with concrete aprons was at the behest of (.......) brrooom brroom car racing. No more stopping races to pull cars out of the gravel and spoiling the tv coverage

I think the main reason was that the tarmac is now 'high friction' and designed to slow a car in a more controlled way. The main argument against gravel traps in formula car racing was it often caused cars to flip over and over.

Well yes, common knowledge, No? But it doesn't work for motorcycle racing. I think they should penisize anybody who uses the runoffs like this with a 30 sec penisalty. Like say the loss from actual gravel (well sorta). That way when MurderMac uses it to dive bomb, he goes into it knowing if he screws up, it will cost him the position.

Agreed, the pro safety brigade often construe these sort of comments as "oh you just want more deaths" when that isn't true. Why do I watch bike racing over cars? Because more often than not on bikes, the penalty outweighs the crime. If you lock a front wheel in a car you might lose a few tenths or run a bit wide. On a bike, you're eating tarmac..end of.

Take this pic as an example, the black marks clearly show that this is being used as the racing line :

1404557188.jpg


F1 has cracked down on the age old ruling now that states "If a car consistently puts more than 2 wheels outside the white lines it will have been deemed to have left the track and will be penalised" I remember in Austria when the GP came back in the late 90's. Turn 1 was a gravel trap then I think in about 2003/4 they changed it for tarmac, and people were literally running about 20 metres off the 'track' into this area and gaining huge amounts of time, it was ridiculous. Yes they are racers and it's all about going fast but WITHIN THE TRACK LIMITS.

As far as Sic, I'm bummed when I think of him. I liked him and also recognized he was out of control often. I just feel the system also failed these guys. Had RD been doing their job, heavy handed sanctions would of helped. Now look at them, suddenly they're getting "serious " with riders meandering on the race line. Meanwhile open season on torpedoing as long as it's 'on the last lap'. Logic failure.

The problem with Sic was, because he was branded just as MM is now and that Verstappen .... in F1, as 'fresh blood' and 'exciting', RD were torn because if they slapped him down they would be told they weren't allowing racing etc etc. While Simoncelli was reprimanded at times, both he and the press literally laughed it off at that press conference when Jorge tried to seriously say that if things didn't calm down, someone was going to get hurt. When action could have been taken it wasn't, then when sadly that moment did come, the very same people that laughed off Jorge's comments just months earlier are screaming from the rooftops about increasing safety.

That said, Sic's accident was imo just unlucky and not a result of him being crazy.

.

But calls for less safety (given the aprons aren't a safety measure) are dumb.

It's a fine line isn't it? I think as other have said, the main issue now is some riders have no respect for what can happen because things are so much safer than they used to be. The issue with seeing divebombing etc in MotoGP, is that it's seen by many, influences many and filters down to the lower classes with a 'Well MM does it, so why can't I? attitide"

But the solution is simple, just put back the bloody gravel. Motorcyle racing shouldn't have tocontort itself just so cars get better tv....

Agreed, the issue would police itself then.

They just parked a crane on a wet hot track causing the death of a driver.

'sad'

That's right. F1 tried to blame Bianchi by releasing the speeds through the corner, yet we learned he had slowed and that other riders had taken the corner in similar fashion, while some even faster. We simply can't put it all on the competitors because they're in the heat of battle.

I know we've butted heads before on this, but I have to disagree. Without forgetting that this is the Suzuka 8 hrs thread Bianchi was to blame for his accident. Earlier on you (rightly) criticise divebombing and also crossing corner exit lines adding that they should get a 30s penalty from RD if they do so. By that you are in essense saying the responsibility of not divebombing and not crossing corner exit lines lies with the competitor in the heat of battle, yet in the case of obeying yellow flags as at the Japanese GP 2014 you are saying 'we can't put it all on the competitors' because they're in the heat of battle? It's either one way or not.

Yes, I do feel strongly about this. I've been involved in racing all my life and have seen countless, and sadly been involved in incidents where drivers other than myself have not obeyed flag signals from the marshalls what are their for the competitors and officials safety. Having seen the yellow flag rule touted for years, Japan 2014 was going to happen sooner or later. Before every race I've ever done, you sign a declaration stating you have read and understand the flag colours and rules. Waved yellow flags, the ruling of which states clearly "CEASE RACING, there is an incident ahead with objects and/or marshalls on the track, slow down, be prepared to make a change in racing line and BE PREPARED TO STOP"

Ignorance (I.e. the heat of battle) is NOT an excuse and in a yellow flag situation, the 'battle' has or is supposed to have ceased. These competitors are not old age pensioners popping down to pick up some milk, they are highly paid and supposedly very skilled athletes and if they cannot adhere to basic instructions while racing they shouldn't be racing full stop. I don't think it's about that, it's more because we've had the luxury on increased safety that they bacame ignorant to the dangers, and sadly it cost one driver his life.

It's irrelevant that there was a tractor recovering a car, had all the drivers obeyed the yellow flag to the spirit of what it's intended, instead of seeing it as a way to gain some time, this incident wouldn't have happened. People forget the tractor was at the very edge of the circuit, not in the middle of the racing line and some 70-100m away from where Bianchi lost control. I do wonder if such a fuss would have been made had instead of himself, he'd killed some helpless marshall/s who were doing nothing wrong.

Driver have abused the yellow flag rule for years, they kept getting away with it and it's eventually bitten back. I bet you a lot of the F1 driver would now think twice before blasting through a waved yellow.

My point was more that if you want guys to stop abusing track limits, or stretching the boundaries, the quickest way to stop that would be to make them less safe.

RD does nothing to deter the volume of sheer stupidity on display every race weekend as you mention.

When the danger was real, the riders and drivers in most series understood to try and avoid putting competitors at risk. Now that the danger has been minimized so greatly, no one cares about safe riding. MM just uses the old battering ram approach for this reason.

Good post, It's called respect.

Absolutely. Classic and graphic example of the danger posed by gravel was Toni Elias breaking his tibia at Assen.

And Gugliano at Laguna last Sunday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJ92XqRWIk
 
Once the barrier was removed and they brought the crane in, they probably should have had a safety car; I don't watch as much F1 these days although I did watch that race, but usually they have the safety car if there is a car close enough to the track to be potentially impacted, let alone a crane, and it was obviously at a place where a car could potentially go off the track in a typhoon, given one already had, hence the presence of the crane.

As far as negligence/ malfeasance is concerned, my issue was more with Bernie apparently not wanting an earlier start because of TV schedules, even though they were well aware there was a frigging typhoon a-coming.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Smith ?feeling pressure? ahead of Suzuka 8 Hours debut | Other bike news | Motorsport.com

Tech 3 Yamaha rider Bradley Smith admits he is feeling under pressure to perform ahead of his debut in the Suzuka 8 Hours this weekend.

The Briton will share the Japanese manufacturer's first full works entry in the event since 2002 with MotoGP teammate Pol Espargaro and Japanese Superbike champion Katsuyuki Nakasuga.

Ahead of a race that is thought likely to have a bearing on Tech 3's rider line-up in MotoGP for next season, Smith says the pressure is on as he and his teammates chase Yamaha's first Suzuka 8 Hours victory since 1996, when Colin Edwards and Noriyuki Haga took honours.

"It's a big honour to be considered for the factory Yamaha team, I know this is a very important race for Yamaha especially in their sixtieth anniversary in racing," said the 24-year-old in an interview with tyre supplier Bridgestone.

"Also with the new Yamaha R1 being launched at the beginning of this year, I feel both honoured to take part but also a little bit of pressure to perform."

"Yes, there is a lot of expectation, but we know the job we need to do and Yamaha have given me Pol and Nakasuga a fantastic package.

"Nakasuga-san has taught us a lot as he helped to develop the bike and has the most experience at Suzuka so yes, we expect the pressure but all of us want to win and bring the trophy back to Yamaha Motor Corporation."
Stoner's Honda the bike to beat

Espargaro meanwhile has singled out defending champion squad HARC-Pro Honda, which boasts two-time MotoGP champion Casey Stoner in its rider line-up, as the team to beat in the prestigious endurance event.

"For sure the HARC-Pro Honda team will be hard to beat as they have factory support from Honda, they won the last two years and this year they have some great riders," said Espargaro.

"We are keeping a close eye on them, but we have to believe in our own bike, team and motivation and believe that we can beat them.

"It will be a big challenge as this is a new race for me and Bradley but we will do everything we can to win this race for Yamaha."
 
The shame or problem with the return of the gravel is that at many circuits, quite simply cars rule so the tarmac will always stay.

AT Phillip Island as an example, if gravel was returned it has been reported that many car clubs will no longer use the facility due to the damage caused by gravel and as such, PI will lose significant revenue which may mean that the facilities suffer and in the end, runs the risk of closing the circuit.

Fact is that at many circuits Bikes are not providing a significant economic benefit and as such will not be listened to when it comes to 'he who shouts loudest'. As a result we bike fans have to accept that we are the poor cousins and so we need to either accept the risks that tarmac outside oft he track confines brings, one we adapt with out own processes which personally I feel is a better option.

We must also not lose the memories of bikes being destroyed by a lowside fall often resulting in the bike being catapulted skywards or end over end as the result of the bike being grabbed in the gravel. Yes certainly the tarmac has risks with the change in riders attitude but it has also resulted in less damage to the bikes themselves (generally speaking as I am sure there are examples to the contrary) and the riders as they are now more likely to slide to a safe(er) stop than in years past where gravel often 'grabs' the rider or bike.

It gets difficult doesn't it. Arguing against myself, would Rainey have suffered his injuries if there wasn't a gravel trap? Would others been injured more often or less?
The problem is, once a standard is set (gravel) any change will have to contend with those changes in an increasingly safety conscious and litigious world.

BTW Gaz, at Broadford, which is run by Motorcycling Vic, car clubs can hire it, but woe betide them if a car kicks up dirt and drags it onto the track. Nice!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Recent Discussions