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

[WebberForWDC]

Could cut out a bit of the parklands, do some excavation of the raised mounds and put down some tarmac out the side of the road *greenie lobbyists bound to complain* and put in a chicane one half or two thirds of the way down the first part of the straight? The boffins would be able to estimate the new approach speed for turn 8 which ought to be much less?

Essentially getting rid of straights could reduce the speeds of all corners in motorsport to not much above 100 clicks!

[D.R.T.]

I heard on the radio yesterday that some people believed it was a lack of experience contributing to the accident.

Looking back at those involved in turn 8 accidents since 1999, you sure dont have to be inexperienced to have a crash there.

Glenn Setons a few years ago seemed very similar to Ashley Coopers accident this year.

What to do from now, surely investigate the possibility of a SAFER barrier at for the corner exit.

[mac]

I think SAFER barriers are a legitimate option and should definitely be considered.

Other than that the inside armco MUST be moved back. I remember when they changed the old chicane there because it was causing accidents - well the positioning of that armco does just that also.

Move the armco back, drop in some grass on the inside and put a kerb on the inside exactly the same as the one on Turn 1 at Eastern Creek.

Then stick some SAFER barriers on the exit.

[RS500]

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.

Get all the facts before posting RS

so they have been changed due to the McColl incident, seems to me that would suggest they weren't as safe as they could have been

[mac]

Maybe a fair dinkum investigation into the safety of the cars is in order as well.

We have had two fatalities from side impacts in less than 18 months - surely a serious technical review is in order...?

[davester]

What will be interesting is the stance taken by the SA Motor Sport Board, the promoter of the event.

Will they (with regard to turn 8) say enough is enough, or will they in-conjunction with IMG continue to feed of the spectacle that turn 8 produces.

Iconic corners present tough issues...do you dumb them down, or do you keep the responsibility with the competitors to drive with more respect?

There is no perfect safety barrier, due to the many different ways a car can collide (glance, 45 degree, head-on, back-in), just like there is no perfect run-off (paving, sand, gravel, grass). All barriers and run-off are a compromise.

What needs to be established for turn 8 is which compromise needs to be addressed, and maybe it's time the V8 Supercar drivers to flex some muscle and get involved in the decision making moving on this one.

Many "soft" barrier options, particularly options that are adjacent to the racing line serve to lessen the driver impact, but also THROW the vehicle back out into the path of on-coming traffic. A soft barrier needs to be positioned back from the racing line, requiring in this instance the turn 8 barrier to be shifted back approx 30m.

The problem a set-back barrier introduces (especially on a street circuit) is the return angle of the barrier further along as it rejoins the racing line.

[mountainstar]

I remember when Mark Porter died there were going to be inquiries made and such and so on but I knew nothing would really be done.

People miss the point, it is not specifically turn 8 or any other specific turn, it is the fact the human body can only absorb a finite amount of force over a finite period of time. The answer is using available technologies such as SAFER Barriers and side impact materials.

Someone mentioned Dale Earnhardt's death. His death was directly caused by his chin striking the steering wheel. Wearing a full face helmet with a chin bar could have mitigated some of the impact force and displaced it.

[Trevor]

As I previously posted, slow them down before the corner.

[davester]

Originally Posted by mac

Maybe a fair dinkum investigation into the safety of the cars is in order as well.

We have had two fatalities from side impacts in less than 18 months - surely a serious technical review is in order...?

There have been a few recent side-on deaths o/seas as well...as some have said, the seats/hans/harnesses dont work best in side impact.

NASCAR appear to have worked hard on driver safety, have a look at the seat configurations.

Ultimately, it comes down to forces the body can survive, and forces the body cannot survive. It also only takes one safety component to fail (seat, seat mounting, belts, belt mounting, hans, helmet) for the safety system to be seriously compromised.

[Denosaur]

Slow them down before hand some how. I'm sure there's enough room around there to possibly create another hairpin of sorts to encourage some more overtaking.

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Someone mentioned Dale Earnhardt's death. His death was directly caused by his chin striking the steering wheel. Wearing a full face helmet with a chin bar could have mitigated some of the impact force and displaced it.

They have been saying in the media that Earnhardt was his hero and he died in the same 'fashion' as Dale did, doing something they both loved. I very much doubt that he hit his chin on the wheel and that his seat belt was incorrectly installed as has been said about Dale's accident.

At the end of the day, the extremely high g-forces of the impact and that his head and helmet would have moved around so severely during the impact that his head injury would have come from it hitting one of the roll bars on the drivers right side. For all those questioning that this couldn't happen, even with the current HANS device he was wearing, his head would have still moved around.

[theugsquirrel]

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

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.

Your examples are not at all related to sport and therefore completely irrelevant to what I was arguing.

[JustASupporter]

Not sure if anyone has posted this article about the Clipsal organisers wanting to revert to the F1 track. It gives an image of the track for thos who can't remember. ...
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...016118,00.html

This would bring more speed to what is now turn 9 but as cars are going straight, the runoff will take the majority of "misses".

So it needs to be this or like I said in an earlier post, a chicane needs to be added.

[mac]

Don't forget that Brewery Bend was hardly the most sedate turn you'll ever see on a motor racing circuit.

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by MPA

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.

This was something I noticed. The wall did not move, whereas in the past it would have absorbed a lot of energy in some of the big accidents in past years.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

Your examples are not at all related to sport and therefore completely irrelevant to what I was arguing.

The point was contained therein.

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

I am happy to out myself here to justify my reasons for the post, my question to you is, "are you happy to out yourself to refute me?"

Many people on here know me and know my involvment in motorsport and it is not just posting on forums and showing up to an occasional race meeting, what about you, what about your motives?


Your move!

[adz_34]

Originally Posted by David Towe

The only way a street circuit should ever be allowed is if there is enough run off everywhere. And not the little escape roads that are only useful if you happen to be travelling in exactly the right direction or you hit the wall beside it.

Hello all, David with respect I would like to ask you how many drivers have died at Bathurst (which is a street/road circuit) in the areas of the track without sufficient runoff (mainly the top of the Mount) that could be blamed on circuit design?

Mark Porters' accident was freakish (as so many are) but Mark could have had a car failure and spun to a standstill at any track and been hit side on in the manner he did.

Don Watson, again a freakish accident in the Chase where he missed the sand trap and hit a earth bank with tyres (which fortunately does not exist anymore) a corner which at the time was viewed as having plenty of runoff and sand. Don unfortunately missed the sand and slide along a grass edge that was there for access vehicles to drive along.

Mike Burgmann lost control of his car and hit the JPS Bridge on Conrod Straight leading to the Chase being built, Mike unfortunately lost his car at such a speed and in a time when safety was still an afterthought that he really would have had a hard time surviving anything he hit and the runoff he would have needed just couldnt have been planned for without prior knowledge of such an accident.

As for Adelaide, it has hosted a number of Grand Prix and V8 Supercar races over the years and this is the first fatality, I agree its not something to be proud of, but given the nature of how Ashley hit the wall I would say that there is either a design issue with the cars that needs to be looked at OR perhaps its time to slow the cars. Which I dont think anyone will agree with unfortunately.

HANS devices and other safety equipment have made motorsport so much safer than it was, but the faster a car goes, especially around corners and to then come to a sudden stop, whether by hitting a wall or another car does nothing when your internal organs and brain are still doing that speed when you come to that stop.

One other rant about the Chase, why cant they put asphalt down on the inside of the corner and cover this with a slippery substance so cars will still spin out but there is no chance they will dig in and roll over, Frosty was incredibly lucky last year and I hate to think what would have happened if that car had dug in early on in his lose and rolled like that Mazda at the 12 hr race.

Rant over.

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by adz_34

Mark Porters' accident was freakish (as so many are) but Mark could have had a car failure and spun to a standstill at any track and been hit side on in the manner he did.

Greg Hansford comes to mind as a similar fatality which I witnessed at Phillip Island in 1995. Porter's crash was avoidable if sufficient run off space & visibility was available to give following cars room to avoid him, Hansford crashed on lap 2 and bounced out in front of a following car to be hit in the drivers door and no amount of space could prevented that although a concrete wall (as believe the coroner recommended in the inquest but still not implimented) could've prevented him bouncing back onto the track at the angle he did.

Originally Posted by adz_34

Don Watson, again a freakish accident in the Chase where he missed the sand trap and hit a earth bank with tyres (which fortunately does not exist anymore) a corner which at the time was viewed as having plenty of runoff and sand. Don unfortunately missed the sand and slide along a grass edge that was there for access vehicles to drive along.

Wrong, as the first trackside marshal to arrive at the car I can tell you the car ran through the actual gravel trap at full speed as a result of a brake rotor failure. This deflated the front left tyre and took the brakes with it resulting in Watson becoming a passenger and not being able to turn or brake. As we now all know gravel traps only work if the car has it's brakes locked on digging the front end into the gravel, no brakes no stop. I don't think anyone, me included, thought a car would ever make it all the way to that earth & tyre wall

I personally believe that gravel trap should be removed and replaced with a huge sealed "car park" which will give drivers a chance to gather up the car before it digs in or spears into some innocent 3rd party (think recent B12 roll over or the "B1000" incidents last year)


I see some are worried about Brewery Bend (F1GP Turn 10) being just as bad. Two crashes (Hakkinen & Skaife) don't make it dangerous BUT it has the advantage of already having a big run off in F1 configuration and by not putting in grandstands they can increase the width of the start of the Brabham Straight so long as the rules prevent drivers just running quicker and wider (time or drive through penalties for offenders).

[Mr_Cool]

If you widen turn 8 they will just go through it quicker. Porters incident could have been avoided if it wasn't a blind section of the track but it was just a freak accident.

[SSbaby]

It's not just the infamous turn 8 that's a problem. I'm of the view that many of our circuits are too narrow, too bumpy, and just don't have enough run-off areas, particularly at the speeds the cars are capable of.

Yes, Bathurst is one of them (as much as I hate to say it). Many of Europe's finest circuits have managed to retain their character while ensuring they are among the safest in the world. Maybe that's another topic for another day.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

As I previously posted, slow them down before the corner.

Thats exactly the answer.......

Speed limit the cars to 100, then everything will be fine.
Done.



Back to being serious, so they put in a chicane and the cars entry speed is slower, what about Porters crash? There weren't any concrete walls involved there.

[Chatters]

There was to an extent. If the concrete wall hadn't have been there and there was sufficient runoff on the outside Clark would've been able to simply drive around. But these things happen, we (hopefully) learn from our mistakes.

[David Towe]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

what about Porters crash? There weren't any concrete walls involved there.

I thought there was? anyone.....

As for Adelaide, as I said, I've drive the circuit, coming out of turn 11 the walls suddenly move back from the track edge and although I wasn't at race pace I felt a great deal of comfort seeing open space between the track edge and the concrete.
I agree that a car can still hit a wall that is 10 or 15 meters from the track edge and still get out into the traffic flow, but obviously the chance of this happening is reduced. Isn't safety all about assessing the risk of a particular incident happening and taking considered actions to reduce the likelyhood of the risk actually happening?

adz_34, re "why cant they put asphalt down on the inside of the corner and cover this with a slippery substance so cars will still spin out" how do they contain the slippery substance so it doesn't find its' way onto the track? The gravel of a gravel trap mostly remains in the gravel trap when a car finds its' way into the trap.

[STEALTHY]

Excuse my bad wording.


Porters crash did involve Concrete walls. But his death was another car hitting him.

Those walls are irrelevent, as a car could spin and stall on the race line and end up in the same spot.

[adz_34]

Originally Posted by Mr_Cool

Porters incident could have been avoided if it wasn't a blind section of the track but it was just a freak accident.

How do you figure it could have been avoided? a freak accident is a freak accident. If his car had spun in the middle of any other circuit and the cars following all took evasive action except for one that wasnt able to react in time you get the same result. Think the Oran Park start line shunt between Paul Morris and Mark Larkham. A freak accident is a freak accident.

[adz_34]

Originally Posted by David Towe

I thought there was? anyone.....

adz_34, re "why cant they put asphalt down on the inside of the corner and cover this with a slippery substance so cars will still spin out" how do they contain the slippery substance so it doesn't find its' way onto the track? The gravel of a gravel trap mostly remains in the gravel trap when a car finds its' way into the trap.

Yes, Mark's car did hit a wall but again that is irrelavant, Nobody here knows what could or would have happened on that fateful day if there was a runoff or no wall in place. The facts are another came around that corner and hit Mark's car in the most vulnerable place possible.

David, I really dont know but anything is better than the current situation of a sand trap that flips cars over. Its only a matter of time before we have another major accident at the chase in its current format. Have you ever spectated in the esses? More cars than ever these days are going through the gravel trap and I can assure you a lot of that gravel goes onto the racing line.