Suzuka 8hr 2015

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 22, 2015

Dr No said:
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!

Well in the past you've talked to yourself, albeit in various guises.

You raise some good points for debate though - as you usually do, and the Rainey question is a contentious one. The curbing was partitioned and ribbed extending into the gravel. Remember, Rainey's accident could have happened a thousand times over and the rider would have got up and walked away. But do we also factor in the notorious murderous lack of grip at Misano? Similarly, Kato veered into the armco at Suzuka...do we attribute that to the proximity of the barrier? - in which case there are many circuits in which a similar accident is waiting to happen...or simply conclude that it was a one off freak of circumstance and reinstate Suzuka having effected whatever safety improvements are practicable?

Levi will be familiar with the age old concept of commercial air safety governed by counting tombstones against cost efficiency. It's much the same thing.

Dr No · Jul 22, 2015

Arrabbiata1 said:
Well in the past you've talked to yourself, albeit in various guises.

You raise some good points for debate though - as you usually do, and the Rainey question is a contentious one. The curbing was partitioned and ribbed extending into the gravel. Remember, Rainey's accident could have happened a thousand times over and the rider would have got up and walked away. But do we also factor in the notorious murderous lack of grip at Misano? Similarly, Kato veered into the armco at Suzuka...do we attribute that to the proximity of the barrier? - in which case there are many circuits in which a similar accident is waiting to happen...or simply conclude that it was a one off freak of circumstance and reinstate Suzuka having effected whatever safety improvements are practicable?

Levi will be familiar with the age old concept of commercial air safety governed by counting tombstones against cost efficiency. It's much the same thing.

Not being able to recall any sockpuppets here, any arguments with myself can be assigned (most frequently) to alcohol.
Safety....is difficult. First define it. Then quantify it. Then specify it. Then implement it. Then enforce it. Then maintain it. Then improve it....
But that's not to say it shouldn't be a goal.

JPSLotus · Jul 22, 2015

Dr No said:
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.

I don't think the riders/drivers would be deterred as much as the average person would be if they heard there would be zero medical assistance because it's more of an abstract concept when you hear that. No one thinks it can happen to them. If you're out there believing you might crash, you aren't going to last too long. A certain absence of imagination is required to be a motor racer.

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 22, 2015

Dr No said:
Safety....is difficult. First define it. Then quantify it. Then specify it. Then implement it. Then enforce it. Then maintain it. Then improve it....
.

The will to institute any of this is ultimately governed by risk vs cost.

JPSLotus · Jul 22, 2015

I'd also like to point out that even the racers who were proponents of safety 30-40 years ago in F1 have stated the circuits became far too safe, and the rise in dangerous driving could be attributed to an atmosphere in which there was no conceivable danger to be had.

Even Jules Bianchi's accident at Suzuka was a product of it as Formula 1 became so safe for the most part, that no one could conceive of anything going wrong....and even for something to go wrong, it took an absolute perfect storm to occur with him going off in the correct spot to submarine under the crane.

JPSLotus · Jul 22, 2015

Arrabbiata1 said:
The will to institute any of this is ultimately governed by risk vs cost.

John Hogan who ran all of the Marlboro advertising in racing for decades said that the only reason the large safety push happened was because of the money that began to become involved with motor racing. Wasn't good for sponsors to have guys dying or being maimed in vehicles sporting their logos.

Jumkie · Jul 22, 2015

Arrabbiata1 said:
The will to institute any of this is ultimately governed by risk vs cost.

Risk vs Profit Margin

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 22, 2015

Jumkie said:
Risk vs Profit Margin

More precisely, yes.

JPSLotus · Jul 22, 2015

Jumkie said:
Risk vs Profit Margin

Arrabbiata1 said:
More precisely, yes.

I disagree, it comes down to sponsor pressure and the threat of losing a race series that forces upgrades in the name of safety. They'll upgrade even if it means a money loser...look at the idiots at Silverstone.

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 22, 2015

JPSLotus said:
I disagree, it comes down to sponsor pressure and the threat of losing a race series that forces upgrades in the name of safety. They'll upgrade even if it means a money loser...look at the idiots at Silverstone.

Which ultimately is governed by financial incentive.

JPSLotus · Jul 22, 2015

Arrabbiata1 said:
Which ultimately is governed by financial incentive.

Yes for one, but not for all which is more of what I was getting at.

Someone loses financially at the end of it.

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 22, 2015

JPSLotus said:
Yes for one, but not for all which is more of what I was getting at.

Someone loses financially at the end of it.

Granted, but based upon calculated and cold commercial decisions - and as you say when the owners of a series cave in over safety at the behest of the sponsors, it is largely predicated upon a fear of biting the hand that feeds.

Jumkie · Jul 22, 2015

JPSLotus said:
I disagree, it comes down to sponsor pressure and the threat of losing a race series that forces upgrades in the name of safety. They'll upgrade even if it means a money loser...look at the idiots at Silverstone.

I hear you bro, but also consider this: Are you familiar with the Ford Pinto? They (the rich guys at the table) made a cost analysis knowing very well the Pinto was defective and would cost lives versus the cost of recalling the vehicle. Guess what they decided to do?

It may sound intuitive to you and I that we would err on the side of safety, but that is not how these ........ think. There is a margin they are willing to accept in regards to safety, especially when the pressure builds up based on the TV contracts they may have just negotiated. Sure deaths may be bad for business (though it doesn't look like there was any loss of revenues for F1 & GP subsequent to recent high profile deaths, I think both series just signed their most lucrative deals to date) but then again that element of danger is good for business too. Its why after a death there is so much messaging via media channels they often have in their pockets to rationalize the incident away from the League's safety protocols. How often is the general consensus that a death happened because of poor safety standards? Almost never, right? So it follows then that the mechanism for limiting any liability from deaths, as you say it would seem bad for business, are as sophisticated as the negotiations are for sponsorship deals.

basspete · Jul 22, 2015

Fantastic thread, very insightful.

Can I just add Stoner is a wee greetin face moanin ...., an his teeth easily outweigh his heid. Fanny.

Jumkie · Jul 22, 2015

basspete said:
Fantastic thread, very insightful.

Can I just add Stoner is a wee greetin face moanin ...., an his teeth easily outweigh his heid. Fanny.

.

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 22, 2015

Jumkie · Jul 22, 2015

I hope Theo doesn't mind, this pic belongs in the 'Riders fined for towing' thread; but that made me think of this. Ironically, only now Race Insurrection is getting "serious" about it....(well serious at least for Moto3).

#22 · Jul 22, 2015

Wrong pic Jumkie:

JPSLotus · Jul 22, 2015

Jumkie said:
I hear you bro, but also consider this: Are you familiar with the Ford Pinto? They (the rich guys at the table) made a cost analysis knowing very well the Pinto was defective and would cost lives versus the cost of recalling the vehicle. Guess what they decided to do?

It may sound intuitive to you and I that we would err on the side of safety, but that is not how these ........ think. There is a margin they are willing to accept in regards to safety, especially when the pressure builds up based on the TV contracts they may have just negotiated. Sure deaths may be bad for business (though it doesn't look like there was any loss of revenues for F1 & GP subsequent to recent high profile deaths, I think both series just signed their most lucrative deals to date) but then again that element of danger is good for business too. Its why after a death there is so much messaging via media channels they often have in their pockets to rationalize the incident away from the League's safety protocols. How often is the general consensus that a death happened because of poor safety standards? Almost never, right? So it follows then that the mechanism for limiting any liability from deaths, as you say it would seem bad for business, are as sophisticated as the negotiations are for sponsorship deals.

Yup, the Pinto was a disgrace and prime example of why American automotive excellence went down the drain quickly in the 1970s. But then again, look at the military, it has to be reassuring to know that your gear from guns all the way up to vehicles are made by the lowest bidder as opposed to the one who provides the best quality.

The Jules Bianchi crash and eventual death did one thing that matters, it gives F1 attention at a time when attention has gone down the drain. Once you get past all of the ........, it'll boost ratings come Sunday before they line up at the Hungaroring. Everyone will want to see what they do to honor Bianchi. It's just numbers at the end of the day.

And as Ice Cube once said, "Life ain't nothin' but ....... and money."

Arrabbiata1 · Jul 22, 2015

#22 said:
Wrong pic Jumkie:

https://youtu.be/0UIPRQ3mt68

Search

Search

Suzuka 8hr 2015

Arrabbiata1

Dr No

JPSLotus

Arrabbiata1

JPSLotus

JPSLotus

Jumkie

Arrabbiata1

JPSLotus

Arrabbiata1

JPSLotus

Arrabbiata1

Jumkie

basspete

Jumkie

Attachments

Arrabbiata1

Jumkie

Attachments

#22

JPSLotus

Arrabbiata1

Similar threads

Recent Discussions