Nakajima's Crash 01/02/2008 Amongst the news emanating from today's testing at Barcelona was a report that Williams had temporarily halted their test while they traced the cause of an accident suffered by Kazuki Nakajima. The driver was unhurt but the crash appeared to be the result of mechanical failure. It was later confirmed that there was a front wing mounting issue that would be solved in time for the car to be run in testing tomorrow.Kazuki NakajimaThis is a timely reminder that the possibility of mechanical failure remains in F1. With the engines becoming so reliable, we have been lulled into thinking that F1 cars do not break anymore, whereas they can and sometimes do. And this poses a question over the latest safety measure that has been so well received to date: the replacement of gravel traps with asphalt run-off areas.Apparently, Nakajima's car went straight on at turn 1 and did not slow down over the run-off area before hitting the barriers. That speaks immediately of something having broken and so prevented the driver from braking effectively; but it also makes me wonder about the wisdom of paved extensions to the tracks.I have written before about the grey area created by the new run-offs but that was in connection with their usefulness in gaining an advantage in the race. Nakajima's crash brings to mind the memory of another Williams going straight off the track at a fast corner and heading, speed unabated, for a concrete wall - at Imola in 1994.Senna's fatal accident happened at a point where there was only grass between the circuit and the barrier; a gravel trap might have slowed the car sufficiently to lessen the impact considerably. The loss of grip on a grassed surface would have made the brakes almost useless and so it was possibly the worst type of surface to have at that point.The argument against gravel traps has been that modern F1 cars tend to skate across their surfaces, thanks to their flat bottoms; the wheels do not dig in and so no deceleration benefit is received. But I am not convinced that paving the run-off area is the ideal solution. As long as the driver retains some control, yes, they appear to be the answer. But, when brake or wing failure is the cause of the car running off the circuit in the first place, the run-off becomes a fast exit route to the nearest barrier.I am not arguing against the paved run-off areas. It just seems to me that they are not the perfect solution that we thought they were. There are circumstances in which they can add to the severity of a crash, rather than cushion it. Taking this into account with the possibility of unfair advantage being taken of them to gain or keep position in the race, it looks as if we have some more thinking to do before reaching the best possible compromise in this area.It is good news that Nakajima was unharmed in the incident. Apart from anything else, I am hoping for great things from him this season. The FW30 is very promising and Kazuki, as well as Rosberg, has been getting some excellent times from it. But let us hope that never again do we have to hear of a Williams going straight on at a corner...
Clive
Steven Roy I have to agree with you Clive. I have never been convinced about paved run off areas. It seems that keepin the race running is more important than driver safety. No overruns to upset the TV paymasters due to slow laps behind the pace car while a car is recovered from the gravel. Another example of Max saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite.Imagine Schumacher's Silverstone accindent in which he broke his leg if the run off had been paved instead of gravel. Date Added: 01/02/2008
Clive That's true, Steven - Schumacher's accident would have been much worse if the run-off had been paved. It may be that there is no perfect answer that satisfies all circumstances but I'm sure that we can find a better solution. Perhaps a combination of the various options would be best.I'm trying very hard to stay away from the subject of Max at the moment. I've had a lot to say about him over the last few months and feel my readers deserve a break. And what does Max do? Starts opening his mouth constantly, pontificating on all sorts of things and appearing wherever there are newsmen. Typical. Date Added: 01/02/2008
Steven Roy One other thought. We have all seen cars aquaplane off the track in the wet. What possible use are paved run off areas in a monsoon like Fuji? There were clearly no use whatever at the Nurburgring.I can see the logic that cars skate over gravel and how it is better to keep the wheels in contact with the surface. The logical conclusion from that -like so many other things in F1 - is that the technical regs are wrong. Cars should not have planks that allow them to surf on gravel. Flat bottoms are clearly a bad idea for so many reasons. It is a while since an F1 car got its nose in the air but we have all seen what happens when it does.Surely tarmac run offs should have a very deep roughened surface. This would slow a car down faster. It would not be rendered completely useless in the wet and it would discourage drivers using it as an extension to the racing line. The second half of the run off should be gravel on the grounds that if someone has gone that far they are out of control and need to be stopped. There should also be a lot more progress made in barrier design.None of this is ideal but is vastly superior to the current billiard table smooth run offs. Date Added: 02/02/2008
Clive Good points, Steven, and possibilities the FIA should be thinking about. Date Added: 02/02/2008
Don Speekingleesh I always thought the well ploughed, sloped gravel traps did a good job. One of them stopped Johnny Herbert from hitting the wall at the second chicane when he left the track at near full speed.If it's wet they just need to be ploughed more.The tarmac is of no use in the wet, and if the car has a failure like that on the Williams (I suppose the front wing came off and wedged under the car). Date Added: 02/02/2008
John F Clive,I recently saw a show that dealt with airated concrete to use to slow down passenger cars. They were trying to see if it could help slow a car in the center as to avoid head ons on highways. The whole time I was thinking if this could some how be used in conjuction with other method to slow a F1 car before it hits the wall. I often think of Imola and that day and think that something could have been done to avoid the tragedy. With all the technology available to us I am sure we could come up with a better system. Tombstone technology is no way to improve track safety, but all too many times it does take a death for improvement. I agree with Steven that anything is better then the paved runoff. Date Added: 02/02/2008
Clive Agreed, Don, especially when we consider how long the gravel trap was accepted as the best answer to the problem. It is only recently that the design of the cars has made them less effective - perhaps we should be looking at that plank and wondering whether it is still so necessary. On balance, I think you're right and the well-ploughed and sloping gravel trap remains the most effective in lessening the effect of serious accidents. And it is certainly the best when it rains. Date Added: 02/02/2008
Clive An interesting bit of information, John. I'm trying to imagine how aerated concrete would work, whether it has bubbles in it that compress and so make the surface soft, or whether it has a very rough surface that slows anything traveling over it.Whatever the final answer might be, disadvantages of the paved run-off are mounting up and it may not be long before we see another change in the way F1 approaches safety in this area. Last year there was talk of the FIA having a new and better barrier that they were going to introduce. How come I've heard nothing since? Date Added: 02/02/2008
Lee So I just saw a picture of the crash on PlanetF1.com, that shows the car sitting on a gravel run off area.I think the paved areas are better.. hit the gravel sideways and you're going to roll, plus once in the gravel you tend to stay there Date Added: 02/02/2008
Clive Yes, the photo does show Nakajima's car sitting on gravel, Lee. All the reports talk of a paved run-off area, however, and I can only presume that there is a narrow edge of gravel trap before the barrier - perhaps an attempt at compromise between the two systems.Staying in the gravel would be viewed by some as an advantage - that the driver who has made a mistake should pay for it. And gravel has proved itself in the past to be a very effective way to slow the cars quickly. It is only in the last few years that the "skating" effect has been noted.It seems that there are disadvantages to both systems and more thought is needed. Date Added: 02/02/2008
Alianora La Canta Ollie, the new barrier is already up at Monza - it may simply be that other places, wary of driver complaints like the ones Monza received (quite needlessly, since the drivers were actually complaining about slow responses to their concerns from the circuit rather than the barrier itself), are implementing the barrier in a quieter manner. Date Added: 03/02/2008
Clive A classic case of misunderstanding, Alianora, if that is what's happening. I'm surprised that Max doesn't make more of it, however, as he doesn't seem to care what people think. Date Added: 03/02/2008
Don Speekingleesh I can't think of many occasions where a car flipped because of the gravel - once it was in it. (Schumacher flipped in practice at Melbourne one year due to the edge of the gravel being higher than the grass/track.)Usually a car flips because of contact with another car/the barrier. Date Added: 03/02/2008
RSS comments feed
Back to the main blog
You may use some HTML in comments. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags, break tags or JavaScript.
Enter the code shown above: Name * Comment * Email * URL
