Turn 8 @ Adelaide, What do we do now??

[Average Punter]

Indianapolis has four turns with absolutely no run-off and what do they do?

Barriers.
Bloody good ones.

That's what Turn 8 needs.

[SSbaby]

I know I will cop some flak for the following comments but that track is absolutely dangerous. As if the concrete walls with little to no runoff and undulating surface isn't enough, and high kerbs are a definite car killer. If the suspension ever fails on the car, or, as we've seen so often this weekend, a flat tyre results, then the driver is just a passenger inside a high speed projectile.

Adelaide is a dangerous circuit by any measure. I'm just one of those motorsport fans who hates to see carnage on the track. I fear the worst when a car hits turn 8 as you can never tell how much the driver has suffered from the huge impact with the wall.

My condolences go out to Ashley Cooper's family.

RIP Ashley Cooper.

[David Towe]

Originally Posted by RS500

I don't know about you but every time i go through a gate, have a ticket or on the back of a cams license it has the words "MOTROSPORT IS DANGEROUS".

These guys are out there knowing the risks involved with racing

Are you saying then that we do nothing about trying to make the sport safer for the people who actually take these risks, in part so the paying public can be entertained??

[theugsquirrel]

Originally Posted by David Towe

Then why do we allow races to be conducted around tracks where the walls are within touching distance everywhere.

Obvious. Unique challenge for the drivers, unique spectacle for the fans.

@mmciau,

I think a SAFER barrier would be much better suited to Turn 8 than your suggestion. Think of all the cars that glaze the wall - I would imagine it'd be easier to make a big mess of that barrier which would bring out the safety car for several more laps. And theres already too much safety car as there is.

At the end of the day, motorsport is dangerous and just pray the drivers are responsible out there.

[Chatters]

Originally Posted by Pro Racer

if they re-designed the HANS device to stop sideways movement it would stop the driver from turning his head, a driver needs to turn his head so he can turn and make other observations. it could also cause more trouble to as there would be no give in the drivers head and with impacts something has to give so it could cause just as bad of an injury. the HANS device restricts and saves alot while giving just enough movement.

You contradict yourself there. You say that the HANS device stops the driver moving his head, then say it gives them 'just enough movement'. A re-design on the HANS device would be able to accomodate panning of the head (ie looking from left to right) but stop the effects of a side on crash like the Cooper crash (ie the head actually moving sideways and towards the shoulder).

[peckstar]

isnt that the purpose of the seat chatters ?

[MPA]

Originally Posted by RS500

turn 8 has been around for 10 years now, it has had many different layout and there have been bad accident in nearly all of its forms. The drivers know its there and its up to them to ensure they drive through it at appropriate speeds.

converting to the full F1 track will remove the problem but possibly create a new one as the cars will be traveling at much higher speeds when entering the hair pin.

Not quite true. The 1st few Clipsals had a chicane to slow the cars before turn 8. This caused problems reconstructing the free standing tyre barriers after cars hit it.

When the chicane was removed, we had more trouble when cars hit the single layer concrete wall and moved it back, quite often cracking the concrete blocks causing delays while the large forklift replaced sections of the wall and realigning it.

Now the wall on the exit of turn 8 is a double layer of concrete blocks, each block weighing about 4 tonne. It does not move when hit as easy as it did.

Yes, returning to the full circuit would mean cars will approach the hairpin at greater speed, but in a straight line with good run off if they stuff it up. Hitting the wall going in would not be anywhere near as bad as clipping in apex going into turn 8 and shooting straight into the wall.

[MPA]

Also one must remember that the HANS will only stop head and shoulder movement.

It will not stop your brain bashing around inside your skull causing injury.

[RS500]

Originally Posted by David Towe

Are you saying then that we do nothing about trying to make the sport safer for the people who actually take these risks, in part so the paying public can be entertained??

I'm all for change (look at my post above the one you quoted), I was merely responding to the "Ban Street Circuits" comment. Its an extreme reaction to the unfortunate events on the weekend. Serious accident happen at any speed and can happen with tyre barriers ect as well.

I can tell you i held my breath on more than one occasion over the weekend watching my mates come around that turn 8 and going right out to the wall.

They have tried to change turn 8 multiple times and big crashes still happen. The best thing is to remove the corner. The corner was made wider by removing the tyre bundles that caused some accident which now means the driver don't have to slow as much. If you give them an inch they will take it.

And i believe the major contributing factor to the angle that Ashley went into the wall was he clipped the armco on the inside of the track (much like seto a few years back). Would it be safer if the armco was removed and just the ripple strip was left there (with strict monitoring of people cutting the inside?)

[MPA]

Originally Posted by Average Punter

Indianapolis has four turns with absolutely no run-off and what do they do?

Indianapolis had a huge problem with drivers hitting the walls and hurting themselves. One part of the solution was to narrow the track. This worked. Cars sliding into the wall were hitting on less of an angle.

[Average Punter]

The HANS device is not the panacea for the problem.

It's pretty easy to stop a helmet suddenly with a HANS device. Unfortunately your brain has 200km/h of momentum and hits the inside of your skull pretty damn hard. What a HANS is great for is the NS part - Neck Support.

As a safety mechanism it's no substitute for momentum absorbing barriers...

[Ben_Dover]

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

Obvious. Unique challenge for the drivers, unique spectacle for the fans.

@mmciau,

I think a SAFER barrier would be much better suited to Turn 8 than your suggestion. Think of all the cars that glaze the wall - I would imagine it'd be easier to make a big mess of that barrier which would bring out the safety car for several more laps. And theres already too much safety car as there is.

At the end of the day, motorsport is dangerous and just pray the drivers are responsible out there.

Who cares if we stuff barriers one life is more important and if we have to change turn 8 so be it.

[MPA]

Originally Posted by RS500

I can tell you i held my breath on more than one occasion over the weekend watching my mates come around that turn 8 and going right out to the wall.

If you give them an inch they will take it.

And i believe the major contributing factor to the angle that Ashley went into the wall was he clipped the armco on the inside of the track (much like seto a few years back). Would it be safer if the armco was removed and just the ripple strip was left there (with strict monitoring of people cutting the inside?)

Some thing to ponder. Going right out to the wall on the exit is done with throttle. Don't like the wall, less right foot. It's going in to turn 8 all wrong that causes problems.

Removing the armco will not stop cars getting out of shape going in if they clip the ripple strip.

[blaarg]

Originally Posted by Chatters

Yes, Dumbrell did hit more head on, but this is where the HANS device comes in. His head would've gone forward as well as sideways so the device would've helped stop the forward movement, which would have been more significant then the sideways movement.

What happened to Cooper is that he hit it squarely side on. No forward movement, 100% lateral movement (which the HANS device does not cover).

Focus needs to be made on the seat for protecting the driver in high lateral load accidents.

Take a V8 Supercar seat, and compare it to a Nascar seat and you'll see the difference in safety between the two.

[RS500]

Originally Posted by MPA

Some thing to ponder. Going right out to the wall on the exit is done with throttle. Don't like the wall, less right foot. It's going in to turn 8 all wrong that causes problems.

Removing the armco will not stop cars getting out of shape going in if they clip the ripple strip.

no but it removes a major factor in some of the major accidents over the past few years. The armco redirects the car to a more head on angle to the wall

[bludvl_x19]

I think we have safely assumed that if you widen the exit, the cars will go through there faster; move the armco back, they cut the kerb, the same result. As someone who was a bit too young to remember when Adelaide had the GP, why didn't the F1 track take this route?

Mick

[theugsquirrel]

Originally Posted by Ben_Dover

Who cares if we stuff barriers one life is more important and if we have to change turn 8 so be it.

It's a drivers corner, and they know the risk.

[theugsquirrel]

Originally Posted by bludvl_x19

I think we have safely assumed that if you widen the exit, the cars will go through there faster; move the armco back, they cut the kerb, the same result. As someone who was a bit too young to remember when Adelaide had the GP, why didn't the F1 track take this route?

Mick

Too short. The V8 track is only 2 miles, and the lap times would probably have been considered too short.

[Woolley]

Just one technical question with regard to the call for SAFER barriers (and I honestly don't know the answer to this) is can they be fitted to remporary barriers? Obviously American ovals have permanent walls which the barrier is fitted in front of. Walls on a street circuit are temporary and usually designed to move.

It is impossible to make all circuits safe in all circumstances. The nature of street circuits is such that it will always be harder to make them safe.

This incident is more shocking because the impact was not on the driver's side, and so the fatal injuries were received (presumably) entirely due to the nature of the deceleration, not to any trauma directly resulting from collision. It was clearly an enourmous impact, and history tells us that similar incidents are not uncommon, and so it is repeatable. At that point the emphasis must change in that the safety of this particular corner is not of an acceptable level. How you improve that is the difficult part and requires careful study, not idle speculation - some obvious solutions - tyre barriers for instance - may actually make it worse.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by RS500

the "proper run off areas" at phillip island didn't seem to help Stuart McColl who was traveling a lot slower than what Ashely and Mark

I knew this would come up, and yes, even that run off has been changed because of the McColl accident, the problem at PI was that the run off areas were designed purely for motorbikes.

Get all the facts before posting RS

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

It's a drivers corner, and they know the risk.

Why do we need guarding on machinery, people know the risks!

Why do we need fall protection on building sites, people know the risks.

Why do we need welding masks, people know the risks.

Why do we need seat blets, people know the risks.

Why do we need airbags, people know the risks

Blah, blah, blah, blah.


This is just not acceptable thinking these days - sorry.

You are required to do everything that is reasonably possible to reduce the risk, has CAMS done this with turn 8 - I think not.


By law you are required to use the Hierachy of Controls for reduing risk, here is a link to the SafeWork SA, maybe CAMS should have a read Hierachy of Control, start at the top and work down, the bottom being the leat effective, and that is where HANS devices fit in.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by Woolley

. . . . tyre barriers for instance - may actually make it worse.

That is right, becuase when the car hits them they will push the car out into on-coming traffic, the 'bounce factor' is very high with tyre barriers.

[mmciau]

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

That is right, becuase when the car hits them they will push the car out into on-coming traffic, the 'bounce factor' is very high with tyre barriers.

And they still spear off the wall as it is in Turn 8 too.

Radisich in 2001, Cooper this year to name 2- they all came to a stop up against the inside wall.

Trajectory after impact is not an exact science and not easily determined.

Mike

[Dingo]

Without wanting to trivialise matters, it could have been a much worse weekend for Paul Dumbrell had his front suspension broken a moment earlier in Race 2. It was a nasty enough impact at the comparitively acute angle that #16 impacted the wall at; imagine had it been 45 degrees to the wall, or further.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a rough idea of the average speeds through Turn 8 in the first year of its current layout (i.e., post-Jones rollover)? Without knowing the cause of Cooper's accident, I won't speculate, but it does seem to the untrained observer that the cars are going faster through there than they were in the first year of the sweeper.

Let us hope there are no knee-jerk reactions and, that if anything is changed, then it is done with clarity and foresight.

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

I knew this would come up, and yes, even that run off has been changed because of the McColl accident, the problem at PI was that the run off areas were designed purely for motorbikes.

The McColl collision was an interesting and strange one. Having been involved in the post crash clean up and repair of the wall the car stood up very well to the impact with the tyre/earth wall but the collision was before HAN devices were available which might've had a different outcome.

Although PI was rebuilt for the Bike GP in the late 1980's the run offs were designed to take into account the cars to be using the track. If you look at my link to the Liam Magee Inquest earlier you will see a reference to CAMS having bigger run off requirements than Motorcycling Australia (Bike version of CAMS).

I never did see any reports on the Coroners Findings into the McColl Inquest.