• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Jules Bianchi undergoes surgery after Japanese Grand Prix crash

The report reveals that the brake-by-wire system on Bianchi's Marussia was "incompatible" with a fail-safe system on F1 cars, which is designed to cut the engine when the driver applies brakes and throttle at the same time.

From Jules Bianchi crash report highlights Marussia brake-by-wire system - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com

I found this on the BBC website (my highlighting),

A breakdown of the conditions leading to the accidents cause and effect.

FIA report: Bianchi did not slow sufficiently - GPUpdate.net


A review of all the evidence and other information about the events leading up to Bianchi's accident has been carried out by the 10-man Accident Panel, appointed by the FIA. The Panel has issued a 396-page report on their findings with recommendations for improvements, many relevant to all of motorsport. This has been presented to the FIA World Motorsport Council.

Conclusions:

The review of the events leading up to Bianchi's accident indicate that a number of key issues occurred, which may have contributed to the accident, though none alone caused it:

1. The semi-dry racing line at T 7 was abruptly narrowed by water draining onto the track and flowing downhill along it. Both Sutil, and Bianchi one lap later, lost control at this point in T 7.

2. Sutil's car was in the process of being recovered by mobile crane when Bianchi approached Sectors 7 and 8, which include the part of T 7 where the recovery was taking place. Sectors 7 and 8 were subject to double yellow flags.

3. Bianchi did not slow sufficiently to avoid losing control at the same point on the track as Sutil.

4. If drivers adhere to the requirements of double yellow flags, as set out in Appendix H, Art. 2.4.5.1.b, then neither competitors nor officials should be put in immediate or physical danger.

5. The actions taken following Sutil's accident were consistent with the regulations, and their interpretation following 384 incidents in the preceding 8 years. Without the benefit of hindsight, there is no apparent reason why the Safety Car should have been deployed either before or after Sutil's accident.

6. Bianchi over-controlled the oversteering car, such that he left the track earlier than Sutil, and headed towards a point "up-stream" along the barrier. Unfortunately, the mobile crane was in front of this part of the barrier, and he struck and under-ran the rear of it at high speed.

7. During the 2 seconds Bianchi's car was leaving the track and traversing the run-off area, he applied both throttle and brake together, using both feet. The FailSafe algorithm is designed to over-ride the throttle and cut the engine, but was inhibited by the Torque Coordinator, which controls the rear Brake-by-Wire system. Bianchi's Marussia has a unique design of BBW, which proved to be incompatible with the FailSafe settings.

8. The fact that the FailSafe did not disqualify the engine torque requested by the driver may have affected the impact velocity; it has not been possible to reliably quantify this. However, it may be that Bianchi was distracted by what was happening and the fact that his front wheels had locked, and been unable to steer the car such that it missed the crane.

9. Bianchi's helmet struck the sloping underside of the crane. The magnitude of the blow and the glancing nature of it caused massive head deceleration and angular acceleration, leading to his severe injuries.

10. All rescue and medical procedures were followed, and their expediency are considered to have contributed significantly to the saving of Bianchi's life.

11. It is not feasible to mitigate the injuries Bianchi suffered by either enclosing the driver's cockpit, or fitting skirts to the crane. Neither approach is practical due to the very large forces involved in the accident between a 700kg car striking a 6500kg crane at a speed of 126kph. There is simply insufficient impact structure on a F1 car to absorb the energy of such an impact without either destroying the driver's survival cell, or generating non-survivable decelerations.

It is considered fundamentally wrong to try and make an impact between a racing car and a large and heavy vehicle survivable. It is imperative to prevent a car ever hitting the crane and/or the marshals working near it.
 
10. All rescue and medical procedures were followed, and their expediency are considered to have contributed significantly to the saving of Bianchi's life.

11. It is not feasible to mitigate the injuries Bianchi suffered by either enclosing the driver's cockpit, or fitting skirts to the crane. Neither approach is practical due to the very large forces involved in the accident between a 700kg car striking a 6500kg crane at a speed of 126kph. There is simply insufficient impact structure on a F1 car to absorb the energy of such an impact without either destroying the driver's survival cell, or generating non-survivable decelerations.

It is considered fundamentally wrong to try and make an impact between a racing car and a large and heavy vehicle survivable. It is imperative to prevent a car ever hitting the crane and/or the marshals working near it.

I refer back to my posts #13 and #18 :dk:
 
I refer back to my posts #13 and #18 :dk:

I don't think any rationally minded person would disagree; I think we are all basically on the same hymn sheet.

And in hindsight, as you say (post 13), it seems crazy to have a recovery vehicle of that type on a live circuit in a run off area. Why would that ever be a good idea?!

I believe the report is saying, essentially, those recovery vehicles are never going to be safe if a car runs into one no matter what you try and do, so lets not have them there from now on.

I predict some notable changes to the recovery procedures at all major motor racing events in the near future.

It was a freak accident with many contributing factors, as described in the summary of the report, but the FIA et al, must learn from it.

As ever, to do nothing is to move backwards.
 
The fact that many drivers negotiated turn 7 without flying off the track shows it could be done. Reading between the lines of the report (not always a good idea but anyway..), it seems Bianchi was trying to do the bare minimum to comply with the yellow flags and that's what caused the accident.

Cars will collide, tyres will blow, drivers will make mistakes. All these may need cars to be removed from the track or runoff areas. The virtual safety car looks like a good idea, could it be extended to 'severe yellows' where full track restrictions are excessive? Perhaps the mandatory use of the pit lane limiter in the relevant sector? There's enough telemetry on the cars to strictly enforce it, with a hefty penalty for non compliance.
 
The fact that many drivers negotiated turn 7 without flying off the track shows it could be done. Reading between the lines of the report (not always a good idea but anyway..), it seems Bianchi was trying to do the bare minimum to comply with the yellow flags and that's what caused the accident.

That's pretty much it, sadly.

The virtual safety car looks like a good idea, could it be extended to 'severe yellows' where full track restrictions are excessive? Perhaps the mandatory use of the pit lane limiter in the relevant sector? There's enough telemetry on the cars to strictly enforce it, with a hefty penalty for non compliance.

Spot on. The VSC (as already implemented by the ACO...(once again sports cars lead F1...)) is exactly as you describe. The ACO use a full course yellow and they use VSC sectors where by you are limited to a set speed, not sure what that is of the top of my head, for a certain sector of the track. The ACO have (and have had for a long time) live car speed data from every car.
whether a full course yellow is necessary in F1, where the race is much shorter, can be debated, but the VSC sectors with mandated speed limit needs to be implemented immediately.

Once again F1 is lagging behind the ACO...

(as an off topic, there's a facinating article on Autosport website at the moment about why manufactures are not interested in F1, and are turning to WEC.)
 
On the subject of endurance racing, Motors TV (Freeview ch71) shows regular repeats of it. I'm not sure which championship they show, it has LMP 1 and 2 and what looks like Astons, Porsches, Ferraris and similar, in full track spec racing alongside the big boys in their own classes. Today's round was a six hour from Sao Paulo, including Mark Webber's crash.
 
Stratman said:
On the subject of endurance racing, Motors TV (Freeview ch71) shows regular repeats of it. I'm not sure which championship they show, it has LMP 1 and 2 and what looks like Astons, Porsches, Ferraris and similar, in full track spec racing alongside the big boys in their own classes. Today's round was a six hour from Sao Paulo, including Mark Webber's crash.

That's WEC, World Endurance Championship.
 
I think F1's days are numbered especially if they go to 4 teams with 4 cars each.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom