TBK-Light.com

Maybe Marussi didn't give Jules enough warning about the tractor or there are double yellow flags?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

from reddit:

Autosport has just released a new article on their site which tries to explain the reasons why the case has been brought by the Bianchi family. The main takeaway is that they want an apology from all involved, they wish nothing more than to have their son's name cleared. Should this go to court and any money be awarded to the Bianchi family then this would go directly to a charitable fund.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

I can understand them but at the same time I don't. Jules choose to be a racedriver. And just like choosing to be a cop, soldier or firefighter there are certain risks involved.

I tend to agree. One should not mix sympathy (which depends on consequences) and responsibilities (which should not). This trial, if fair, should have the same verdict as if, say, the car had run over a marshall killing him with no harm to the driver.

The only thing i'd say regarding Suzuka 2014 is that it didn't really look as if conditions at the time of the accident were really that bad... Fuji 2007 & the 2009/2011 Chinese Gp's from the TV at least all looked much worse & without going back & checking I'm sure I recall Martin Brundle raising the point in the immediate aftermath that conditions seemed worse earlier in the race when they were all having to use the full wet's.

There's an argument to be had about why the Safety car wasn't called & why a tractor was where it was but even then I wouldn't say the way it was handled was particularly out of the ordinary. With the benefit of hindsight yes it was a mistake but looking at it from the perspective of before the accident I'm not sure anything was done any differently to what was considered the standard procedure.


I'm not meaning to throw Jules under the bus or anything with this next comment but IF Jules had indeed not slowed enough for the double waved yellow's & IF that was indeed a contributing factor in him going off then is it not correct to point that out?

The more the point about Jules not slowing down is raised the more it gets the FIA off the hook.

Indeed, Sutil had an identical accident the lap before at presumably an even higher speed but walked out without a scratch.

The only thing that changed the accident Jules had from being a normal sutil like crash to a fatality was the presence of the tractor.

Jules didn't slow down as much as he should but as a consequence of that, he deserves a telling off from race control and the ability to learn from that error. Because of the FIA not following procedures that they have in place (Safety car before allowing tractors onto track should've been a big ruling) then he ended up paying the ultimate price.

The fia had a huge warning about this in Hockenhiem 2014 but because nothing happened there they were probably over-confident in being able to clean up things under racing conditions, it bit them hard this time.

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

The FIA singled out that as the only reason for the accident occurring. You're not throwing Jules under the bus but Todt's FIA have. And that's the point of this litigation. There are multiple reasons that contributed to the accident yet the FIA and the "independent" review panel failed to address or accept any responsibility for circumstances and decisions the FIA and FOM made on the day and well before the event, all of which contributed to the accident.

It is a disgusting and brazen attempt at covering up one's culpability by attempting to pin the blame on the only person who cannot answer any questions.



This is a hard one to justify. Logic says you're correct. But slowing down significantly in the conditions and on the tyres they were on would have made the car more unstable, lose downforce and make the driver lose control. Martin Brundle pointed that out on his Sky Sports piece at the very next race following Japan 2014.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

It was a butterfly effect and the perfect storm situation at the same time really.

FOM wants race to be on prime time for Europe. In Japan you must start the race later than in Europe for that reason to get a good audience.
FIA has been heavily critisized amongst the fans because of Fuji 2007, Malaysia 2009 and Canada 2011 for being too cautious with rain. Charlie Whiting gets the most of it, but so does Bernie and FOM (ratings again).
False sense of security amongst the drivers and the organisation, let's push the envelope, these cars are safe. These tracks are safe. Drivers respect the flags because they're the best in the world and they know what those flag means.
"We're the pinnacle of the racing world, we show the way that others will follow." -attitude. IndyCar noticed in the 90's that sending a recovery truck on a live race track is a bad idea on so many levels. Someone might sue. But IndyCar is for rednecks and Americans sue for everything, so that doesn't apply for FIA sanctioned events.
Teams pushing the envelope with tyre strategies. If it's "maybe still too wet for the inters.", you can bet that someone will switch for the inters on the next lap. Just to throw the dice and see if there's a chance to get few positions out of the gamble. Media and fans are always overwhelmed when someone does that. Time to be the hero of the day!
Young talent in a sub-par car on the way to the glory. Time to be the hero of the day!
It's Japan, the track marshalls are over enthustiatic as always. Get the tractor on the track before the debris has hit the ground.
Race control has hands full monitoring every corner while they're fighting against the time, it's going to be the noon soon. We lose our faces in front of the fans again if we end this under the red or SC. It's Japan, the track marshalls are enthustiatic and fast, it's going to be one lap at max when double yellow is needed.


Maybe someone saw that coming from miles away, but great majority of the people thought things were handled properly. That's what the FIA report says. That's why nearly everyone was surprised of the end result. That's why we get the kneejerk reaction with the Halo system and the official accident report.

It's the hindsight and the beauty of it really with all the things mentioned above. But this is a pattern that's always been repeated. The original idea of the Formula One series itself is a set of rules to make racing more predictable (safer). HANS device, SAFER barriers, chicanes, switch from gasoline to methanol, engine capacity limits, crash tests for racing cars...all introduced with the power of hindsight and to reduce the chance of the same accident happening again. It's a sport that doesn't want to allienate its fans and preventing tragedies is always been a key concern. People want to see hard racing wheel on wheel and even the accidents. But they want to see the driver to walk away. This was recognized hundred years ago already. Small steps to improve safety (losing paying audience) has been taken ever since.

Race drivers are race drivers. They're all wired up differently than most of the people. They will race a lawnmowers with LS1 twin-turbo engines running nitros if that's the pinnacle of the motorsports. See the Isle of Man for example.

What happened at Suzuka 2014 is for me 95% on the FIA and 5% on Jules. The official report is made by FIA and is only blaming Jules. Lawsuit is justified.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

Way to go Gary Hartstein - https://formerf1doc.wordpress.com/2016/ ... -bianchis/

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

At the end of the day, this is what the problem is. There should have been a more in-depth investigation, but they went for the easiest option.

ISTR questions about the helicopter and why it was not used to evacuate him, for example. Any session is usually stopped immediately if the helicopter cannot take off.

Edit: Oh, just read Hartstein's article! He really is the thorn in the FIA's side that needs to be there.

Philippe Bianchi has been planning this for half a year. It is very good news that he can now go ahead with it.

http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/f1 ... pay-122315

(check the date)

_________________
Dan Wheldon ¦ 1978-2011
Marco Simoncelli ¦ 1987-2011
Jules Bianchi ¦ 1989-2015
Justin Wilson ¦ 1978-2015

Yeah, I know he's mad and I don't care. I do not care. I did not care then. I do not care now. I'm here to race him.

Regarding slowing down under yellows, racing drivers are by their very nature hard wired not to do that, it goes against every principle needed to be a "racing" driver (i.e. get to the finish first), the only true way you get them to slow down is by forcing them to, now with the VSC, but back then by deploying the safety car. What the FIA did with their investigation was the equivalent of the Police investigating the death of a fireman who dies while rescueing a baby from a house fire and concluding that he is solely responsible for his own death 'by running into the burning building'.

BUT, had the FIA admitted they cocked up by not deploying the safety car or breaking their own rules and running the race without a medical helicopter available, then they'd have opened themselves up to a slam dunk case of negligence.

When there has been an accident, it's easy to think of many issues that "could have been avoided".
But if Bianchi had never had his accident and he would still race today, would anyone still remember Suzuka 2014 as a failure by FIA? After Sutil's car had been recovered, the race would have been green and I think most would have forgotten the moment of danger there. Would we even have VSC these days? Maybe they would still recover cars under double yellows (which always worked perfectly for decades apart from that one afternoon).

I'm just being devil's advocate. But if FIA is to blame about the wrong decisions leading to the accident, they should be just as guilty as whether or not the accident had ever happened. Making post-hoc accusations for responsibility is pointless, because in reality, everyone thought they were in control and that nothing bad would happen. Hindsight is a useless skill.

Looks nice, although the front wheels should be a bit narrower and the rears a bit wider, but this is ok. Way better than 17" rims...

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-offers-first-look-at-wider-2017-f1-tyres-741126/

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

That car is already our of date because it doesn't have the halo on it

F1 is an open cockpit formula so shouldn't have a halo at all, but if they're going to have one I'd have hoped they'd have gone with red bulls idea.

So obviously the fia have mandated the Ferrari halo from 2017

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

So FIA doesn't surprise us. But hey, it's important! Wolfgang von Trips would be alive had his Ferrari had halo implemented!

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."

It is also going to be 'more streamlined' in its updated form to be tested soon. Which screams 'less substantial', somewhat missing the point...

I knew you were sarcastic but I looked up his crash nonetheless to refresh my memory, and I really wasn't prepared to see the second close angle. Only knew the farthest one and always thought he had stayed in the car while spinning in the air.

*Graphic*

Did the drivers even had belts to be strapped in the car back then?