Rest In Peace #39 :(
fuck
rip
does anybody know what happened?
Oh no Poor Luis :'(
RIP .
Quote from: vin97 on June 03, 2016, 03:44:46 PM
fuck
rip
does anybody know what happened?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uML9T3vCEUY
Here is his accident, but it is hard to see. Looks really fast.
Yeah... Poor Luis.... Looks like he was really unlucky and followed his bike in skidding along the ground at high speed and collided with his own bike after it hit that barrier and stopped. :(
RIP Luis!
Hawk
rip
Salom hit the motorcycle at a very high speed, this is what the Italian video says.
RIP.
was actually watching that free practice session live on telly, although there was no footage of the actual crash.
a sad day for the sport.
RIP Luis
...that was an unlucky one :'(
Too sad :( I hate it even more when youngsters are involved.
This crash shows what it means to work on safety adapting the circuits to today's performances and risk acceptance.
RIP Luis Salom :(
R.I.P Luis Salom #39!
A guy i will really miss in Moto2! This is just one of those freak accidents where there is nothing that could have helped..
Let's see how the weekend will go after change of layout to the F1 layout.
Always easy to see it after of course, but ... yeah, it was a potentially very dangerous spot.
Fast turn with not so much space before the barriers and, most important, no gravel between the track and the barriers (to slow down rider and bike), only flat asphalt: bad.
probably true but if i understood correctly, they will be using the f1 hairpin at the stadium section.
Yes, which is kind of admitting that the spot was dangerous and that nobody (safety commission or whatever it's called) noticed that before the crash.
i mean turn 10 (the long, smooth left hander) not turn 12. they use the full f1 layout.
anyway, i hope they don't actually plan on sticking to the f1 layout for the next years (like some commentators said) but rather put a gravel trap at turn 12.
Quote from: vin97 on June 04, 2016, 09:09:19 AM
i mean turn 10 (the long, smooth left hander) not turn 12. they use the full f1 layout.
anyway, i hope they don't actually plan on sticking to the f1 layout for the next years (like some commentators said) but rather put a gravel trap at turn 12.
I think it would be the safest choice to stay with F1 layout as both the turn 10 and 12 was quite dangerous on the other layout. It would have to be a huge gravel trap and gravel traps can also be very dangerous at that speed, if you comes sliding fast and the gets stuck in the gravel and get thrown around in huge tumble. And not to mention an expensive rebuild to make it more safe in turn 10 and 12.
But we have to wait and see. I personally don't think it is too bad with the new layout.
well, to be completely honest, i would keep exactly the same (old) layout. as you said, gravel traps can introduce new risks and i don't think you will ever be able to avoid freak accidents like these.
i mean how often do you see a rider exactly following the trajectory of his bike after crashing?
...for this weekend it makes sense to use the modified turn 12 complex, if anything to give the riders some "security".
but changing turn 10? i don't get this one at all and i don't like the change because t10 was always one of the best spots for overtakes.
Quote from: vin97 on June 04, 2016, 10:00:15 AM
but changing turn 10? i don't get this one at all and i don't like the change because t10 was always one of the best spots for overtakes.
From listening to Hodgson and Edwards on BT Sport if you change one you have to change the other as the chicane encroaches on the run off of turn 10.
Also there has apparently only been 6 crashes at turn 12 in the last 10 years, so its easy to see why it was probably overlooked.
Quote from: Yogivo on June 04, 2016, 11:08:25 AM
Also there has apparently only been 6 crashes at turn 12 in the last 10 years, so its easy to see why it was probably overlooked.
That's the whole problem with security: you don't notice, until the day it becomes evident.
I'm all for putting in safe run-off areas in the name of safety, but when you think of how many classic tracks have been ruined by putting in stupid chicanes to slow competitors down at certain points in the track then that I don't agree with that....
So sensible safety yes, but do-gooders who jump up after a death on track and start saying they should slow riders down by putting in chicanes in the name of safety because currently it's too dangerous are quite frankly talking a load of BS. Motorsport is dangerous! The competitors now it and are willing to take the risks! Deaths will happen in motorsport due to freak accidents no matter what safety precautions you implement, it's just the way it is.
This was a completely freak accident and nothing to do with the length of run-off area - it was just very unlucky that the rider unfortunately slid straight into his stationary bike at speed; if he'd have bit the barrier and not his bike then he'd more than likely be okay.
But no doubt the do-gooders will prevail and they'll stick a stupid chicane in at that point and we'll end up with yet another ruined classic track! ::) :P
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
I'm all for putting in safe run-off areas in the name of safety, but when you think of how many classic tracks have been ruined by putting in stupid chicanes to slow competitors down at certain points in the track then that I don't agree with that....
In that specific case, the preferred solution would be to keep the nice turn, but have a safer run-off area. But it's not doable during the week-end.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
This was a completely freak accident and nothing to do with the length of run-off area - it was just very unlucky that the rider unfortunately slid straight into his stationary bike at speed; if he'd have bit the barrier and not his bike then he'd more than likely be okay.
I really doubt about that: the run-off is short by modern standards and it doesn't slow you down a bit.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
But no doubt the do-gooders will prevail and they'll stick a stupid chicane in at that point and we'll end up with yet another ruined classic track! ::) :P
[You sound like Jeremy Clarkson :) ]
If they can improve the run-off, they will do it. If they can't then there are two options: either you stop racing there, or you modify the track.
Would you (as chief of MotoGp security) be willing to take the responsibility on you saying "Don't worry, it was just bad luck" and then, if the same thing happens next year, go and see the parent of the 2nd victim and try to explain your position ? Because some people will have to take that responsibility ... it's too easy for you (and me) to say "hey it's a dangerous sport, shit happens", as we have zero responsibility in that. But for others it's a very different story.
Sic's accident was bad luck. This one is bad luck + bad safety at that turn. Which makes it worse.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 04, 2016, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
I'm all for putting in safe run-off areas in the name of safety, but when you think of how many classic tracks have been ruined by putting in stupid chicanes to slow competitors down at certain points in the track then that I don't agree with that....
In that specific case, the preferred solution would be to keep the nice turn, but have a safer run-off area. But it's not doable during the week-end.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
This was a completely freak accident and nothing to do with the length of run-off area - it was just very unlucky that the rider unfortunately slid straight into his stationary bike at speed; if he'd have bit the barrier and not his bike then he'd more than likely be okay.
I really doubt about that: the run-off is short by modern standards and it doesn't slow you down a bit.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
But no doubt the do-gooders will prevail and they'll stick a stupid chicane in at that point and we'll end up with yet another ruined classic track! ::) :P
[You sound like Jeremy Clarkson :) ]
If they can improve the run-off, they will do it. If they can't then there are two options: either you stop racing there, or you modify the track.
Would you (as chief of MotoGp security) be willing to take the responsibility on you saying "Don't worry, it was just bad luck" and then, if the same thing happens next year, go and see the parent of the 2nd victim and try to explain your position ? Because some people will have to take that responsibility ... it's too easy for you (and me) to say "hey it's a dangerous sport, shit happens", as we have zero responsibility in that. But for others it's a very different story.
Sic's accident was bad luck. This one is bad luck + bad safety at that turn. Which makes it worse.
I understand were your coming from Max, but as I say, Motorsport is dangerous and the riders know that and still make the decision to take the risk even knowing that they might get killed.
As you say, if it's possible to create a bigger run-off area, possibly with a sand or gravel trap or even layered catch fences to absorb the energy before rider/bike hit that barrier, then that would be great, but to totally alter the layout of the actual track surface itself will totally alter the character of the track and that would be bad.
In answer to your last paragraph: Well if that was a fact of reality about someone having to take responsibility for the deaths of riders if additional safety measures are not now put in place, then I ask you to think about a race event like the IOM TT?? Because according to your thinking and many here who've posted the same about implementing safety measures, the IOM TT event should be totally banned because it is VERY SERIOUSLY dangerous with very little run-off areas and almost non-existent safety measures for the TT riders simply because it's impossible for true safety measures being implemented at the IOM TT for obvious reasons. So what do you think about safety at the IOM TT? Should they ban the TT because it's too dangerous and impossible to make safe? Or should they put crappy chicanes in the TT course to slow them down at every danger point? ;)
I think the reality is that do-gooders react in the moment and through emotion, but the people who actually make these decisions should be people who keep things in perspective and just except that these things happen in a dangerous sport and will always happen unfortunately. You can only make motorsport tracks safe to a certain point, the rest is up to the competitors not to make bad mistakes at the wrong places, that's of course barring freak accidents that unfortunately cannot be accounted for in any way, not by anyone.
All I'm saying is that things should be kept in perspective when these very sad and unfortunate incidents happen in motorsport, and not just automatically start to think about slowing competitors down at points were competitors are unfortunately killed in accidents.
Hawk.
Road racing is basically something where organizers give up any responsibility upfront. I can see the fascination it has on some, but personally I'm pretty much against it. Anyway, that's a separate discussion here.
For track racing, organizers do have some responsibility: riders are part of security boards and advise about points that are now too dangerous.
That point was too dangerous, not much to be discussed there. So short term, changing the layout as they did was the only option. For the next year, I do hope they will be able to keep the turn as it were, without the "F1 chicane", adding a better run-off area. By the way, do you know why F1 do use the chicane ? Try to guess ... :)
Some seem to think that a sport where from time to time riders die is a good sport and a good show. In practice, any sport/show where participants die too often is doomed to disappear (or shrink to very limited popularity, like road racing). Death is not good.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 04, 2016, 02:24:19 PMWould you (as chief of MotoGp security) be willing to take the responsibility on you saying "Don't worry, it was just bad luck" and then, if the same thing happens next year, go and see the parent of the 2nd victim and try to explain your position ?
but the point is if he hadn't hit his bike, he would be fine (people have crashed into airfence at over 250km/h and were "fine") and hitting your own bike could literally happen at every corner (whether it be at the wall/airfence or getting hit by a rapidly spinning bike that was catapulted into the air by gravel), it's just extremely rare (because the trajectories have to perfectly match to what, one degree?).
so there is really nothing you can do, of course maybe a bit too early for a rational/unemotional decision but it's the sad truth.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 04, 2016, 07:09:13 PM
Road racing is basically something where organizers give up any responsibility upfront. I can see the fascination it has on some, but personally I'm pretty much against it. Anyway, that's a separate discussion here.
For track racing, organizers do have some responsibility: riders are part of security boards and advise about points that are now too dangerous.
That point was too dangerous, not much to be discussed there. So short term, changing the layout as they did was the only option. For the next year, I do hope they will be able to keep the turn as it were, without the "F1 chicane", adding a better run-off area. By the way, do you know why F1 do use the chicane ? Try to guess ... :)
Some seem to think that a sport where from time to time riders die is a good sport and a good show. In practice, any sport/show where participants die too often is doomed to disappear (or shrink to very limited popularity, like road racing). Death is not good.
F1 Chicane? Yeah... the same reason they ruined Imola with chicanes after Senna's death. What a dick of a decision that was; totally ruined that historic circuit in comparison to what it was before, and most competitors will tell you the very same too.
The death of any competitor isn't a good show of course, but when competitors willingly participate in a dangerous sport then deaths will always happen from time to time, and the danger is all
part of the fascination with dangerous sports; take away the thrill of the danger and you might as well sit down in front of your PC and play GPB instead of actually riding in a real MotoGP.
Hawk.
PS: +1 Vin I totally agree mate. ;)
Quote from: Yogivo on June 04, 2016, 11:08:25 AM
Quote from: vin97 on June 04, 2016, 10:00:15 AM
but changing turn 10? i don't get this one at all and i don't like the change because t10 was always one of the best spots for overtakes.
From listening to Hodgson and Edwards on BT Sport if you change one you have to change the other as the chicane encroaches on the run off of turn 10.
but there is a wall/airfence separating the gravel trap of turn 10 from the f1 chicane.
Quote from: vin97 on June 04, 2016, 08:11:55 PM
but the point is if he hadn't hit his bike, he would be fine (people have crashed into airfence at over 250km/h and were "fine")
That's the point they don't want to take a risk on. Yes, hitting his own bike was extremely bad luck. But still, a short run-off with no gravel on such a fast corner is just bad news waiting to happen. It has to be a big run-off and with gravel (towards the end of the run-off, eventually). If air-fences were all it takes to crash at 250Kmh and be "fine", then we'd see no gravel traps and no big run-offs, just air-fences at a few meters from the track. But we know it's not like that.
So if there's a dangerous corner, either they keep it but make it safe (run-offs), or they change it. Even if the old grumpy ones will scream. Anyway, they always scream the usual "it was better before" song, no matter what.
And yeah, the explanation of why they changed turn 10 sounds a bit shaky. Weird.
But when some riders (same team) speculate that "somebody asked to change that because it is more favourable to his own bike" ... well, I'm pretty speechless ...
I think all they need to do is dig the tarmac out at turn 12 and add a gravel run off, maybe move the fence back. There's definitely no need to change the the layout.
The whole track needs re-surfacing anyway, when you watch the slow-mo replays from this weekend the amount of chatter is ridiculous, and the slow-mo i saw of Luthi with his wheel bouncing about an inch or two mid corner was stupid, the F1 cars have clearly taken their toll on the surface over the years.
Also from the sounds of Rossi's post qualifying interview he believes something went wrong with Saloms bike to cause the crash.
Guess we'll just have to wait and see and hopefully this layout is a one off thing.
Edit: Just seen this... "Something happened. We don't know exactly what. We are studying the bike and the telemetry and other things"
http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/231011/1/luis-salom-accident-still-a-mystery.html#uAs2jAYeUmJAmGf8.99
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 04, 2016, 10:29:41 PMThat's the point they don't want to take a risk on. Yes, hitting his own bike was extremely bad luck. But still, a short run-off with no gravel on such a fast corner is just bad news waiting to happen. It has to be a big run-off and with gravel (towards the end of the run-off, eventually). If air-fences were all it takes to crash at 250Kmh and be "fine", then we'd see no gravel traps and no big run-offs, just air-fences at a few meters from the track. But we know it's not like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lFOhzONEQ&t=6m50s
Anyway, what I'm saying is that colliding with your own spinning bike that has been catapulted into the air by the gravel (before reaching the airfence) is about as unlikely as the trajectory of the rider and bike being exactly the same (leading to a collision at the airfence). You can maybe decrease the risk of having another rider crash exactly like Salom but at the same time you introduce new risks, so in the end you will have to accept a certain level of risk.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 04, 2016, 10:29:41 PMAnd yeah, the explanation of why they changed turn 10 sounds a bit shaky. Weird.
But when some riders (same team) speculate that "somebody asked to change that because it is more favourable to his own bike" ... well, I'm pretty speechless ...
Do you have a source for this?
That sounds pretty fishy, even for Dorna.
Quote from: Yogivo on June 04, 2016, 10:51:57 PM
I think all they need to do is dig the tarmac out at turn 12 and add a gravel run off, maybe move the fence back. There's definitely no need to change the the layout.
The whole track needs re-surfacing anyway, when you watch the slow-mo replays from this weekend the amount of chatter is ridiculous, and the slow-mo i saw of Luthi with his wheel bouncing about an inch or two mid corner was stupid, the F1 cars have clearly taken their toll on the surface over the years.
Completely agree.
Quote from: Yogivo on June 04, 2016, 10:51:57 PMAlso from the sounds of Rossi's post qualifying interview he believes something went wrong with Saloms bike to cause the crash.
Guess we'll just have to wait and see and hopefully this layout is a one off thing.
Edit: Just seen this... "Something happened. We don't know exactly what. We are studying the bike and the telemetry and other things"
http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/231011/1/luis-salom-accident-still-a-mystery.html#uAs2jAYeUmJAmGf8.99
The (german eurosport) commentators were also suspecting a mechanical failure, based on the reactions of the mechanics after taking a closer look at the bike.
Quote from: vin97 on June 04, 2016, 11:42:39 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 04, 2016, 10:29:41 PMThat's the point they don't want to take a risk on. Yes, hitting his own bike was extremely bad luck. But still, a short run-off with no gravel on such a fast corner is just bad news waiting to happen. It has to be a big run-off and with gravel (towards the end of the run-off, eventually). If air-fences were all it takes to crash at 250Kmh and be "fine", then we'd see no gravel traps and no big run-offs, just air-fences at a few meters from the track. But we know it's not like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lFOhzONEQ&t=6m50s
Yes but in that video, he didn't go in as perpendicular as Luis did. It is not so certain that poor Luis would have survived without hitting the bike: he went in very hard and almost at 90deg.
Quote from: vin97 on June 04, 2016, 11:42:39 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 04, 2016, 10:29:41 PMAnd yeah, the explanation of why they changed turn 10 sounds a bit shaky. Weird.
But when some riders (same team) speculate that "somebody asked to change that because it is more favourable to his own bike" ... well, I'm pretty speechless ...
Do you have a source for this?
That sounds pretty fishy, even for Dorna.
Press conf after quali, yamaha boys (both) saying strange stuff. Rossi's words are particularly incredible (if he really said that, I haven't seen it live, just read the report from italian press):
"Perché hanno cambiato la curva 10? Chi l'ha deciso l'ha fatto perché va meglio per la propria moto. Non è vero che avrebbe inciso sulla via di fuga della nuova chicane"
Yawn ...
On friday evening there was a safety comision meeting where all motogp riders are invited to go. They only where 8 mgp riders in that meeting, from the top guys just marquez were there. All of the 8 riders and comision where agree in the changes so nothing to say about that. If yamaha factory riders wanted to say or decide something the would only have been in the meeting with the other guys.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 04, 2016, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2016, 05:52:11 PM
In answer to your last paragraph: Well if that was a fact of reality about someone having to take responsibility for the deaths of riders if additional safety measures are not now put in place, then I ask you to think about a race event like the IOM TT?? Because according to your thinking and many here who've posted the same about implementing safety measures, the IOM TT event should be totally banned because it is VERY SERIOUSLY dangerous with very little run-off areas and almost non-existent safety measures for the TT riders simply because it's impossible for true safety measures being implemented at the IOM TT for obvious reasons. So what do you think about safety at the IOM TT? Should they ban the TT because it's too dangerous and impossible to make safe? Or should they put crappy chicanes in the TT course to slow them down at every danger point? ;)
Road racing is basically something where organizers give up any responsibility upfront. I can see the fascination it has on some, but personally I'm pretty much against it. Anyway, that's a separate discussion here.
And with perfect timing: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36451846 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36451846)
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 05, 2016, 01:24:58 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 04, 2016, 07:09:13 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2016, 05:52:11 PM
In answer to your last paragraph: Well if that was a fact of reality about someone having to take responsibility for the deaths of riders if additional safety measures are not now put in place, then I ask you to think about a race event like the IOM TT?? Because according to your thinking and many here who've posted the same about implementing safety measures, the IOM TT event should be totally banned because it is VERY SERIOUSLY dangerous with very little run-off areas and almost non-existent safety measures for the TT riders simply because it's impossible for true safety measures being implemented at the IOM TT for obvious reasons. So what do you think about safety at the IOM TT? Should they ban the TT because it's too dangerous and impossible to make safe? Or should they put crappy chicanes in the TT course to slow them down at every danger point? ;)
Road racing is basically something where organizers give up any responsibility upfront. I can see the fascination it has on some, but personally I'm pretty much against it. Anyway, that's a separate discussion here.
And with perfect timing: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36451846 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36451846)
Yes... Sad news indeed, but for some reason when a competitor dies at the IOM it seems to be just accepted as inevitable even by those that if the same thing happened on a designed race circuit those very people would be asking for a chicane to be put in to slow competitors down at the danger point...... As I say, we don't here these do-gooders campaigning for the IOM to be banned(simply because true safety measures around the TT circuit is impossible) do we.
So again I say let's get things into perspective and stop calling for silly safety measures that spoil the classic layouts of these great circuits in the so-called name of safety, because accidents and deaths will always happen in dangerous sports no-matter what safety measures you implement. It's a personal choice whether you take part in dangerous sports or not, and if you choose to take part then you know the risks and so do the public - No need for self-righteous do-gooders to mother these people at all, they know what risks they are taking and accept it. :)
Just to make it clear - I am a big fan of the IOM-TT and I'm certainly not calling for any banning or safety measures to be implemented - The IOM-TT is what it is and better-off for it being that way. ;)
Hawk.
Except that motor sport has done giant leaps in terms of safety in the past 30 years. If it were for people like you, we'd still be stuck to safety levels of the 70s.
Personally I do not want the TT to be banned, banning is almost always a bad approach.
But for sure I don't want it being promoted, especially as "the greatest show on earth" or "the pinnacle of motor sports". Because that's not what it is.
To be honest (and I know I'm not making a lot of friends saying that), I'm glad the TT and road racing in general has limited audience and exposure.
And keeping on calling people with a different opinion "do-gooders" puts you on the same level of the dumb ones of the other camp that call you (and me) "stupid bikers".
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 05, 2016, 07:56:36 PM
Except that motor sport has done giant leaps in terms of safety in the past 30 years. If it were for people like you, we'd still be stuck to safety levels of the 70s.
Personally I do not want the TT to be banned, banning is almost always a bad approach.
But for sure I don't want it being promoted, especially as "the greatest show on earth" or "the pinnacle of motor sports". Because that's not what it is.
To be honest (and I know I'm not making a lot of friends saying that), I'm glad the TT and road racing in general has limited audience and exposure.
And keeping on calling people with a different opinion "do-gooders" puts you on the same level of the dumb ones of the other camp that call you (and me) "stupid bikers".
Not at all. In the 70's a lot of race tracks had hardly any run-off areas at all and were very unsafe, but all most major tracks nowadays are very safe indeed, but there will always be freak situations that no matter what you do to make them any safer someone is going to get killed at some point in time.
BTW. I'm not saying everyone with a differing opinion is a "do-gooder", some people talk sense whereas do-gooders always come up with ideas or rules that are forced upon people who don't want it, and usually do-gooders are people who act without talking to the very people their decisions would affect. It actually means, "
a well-meaning but unrealistic or interfering philanthropist or reformer". Nothing dumb about using a term that describes those sort of people very accurately indeed. Lol ;D
Hawk.
Forever missed, never forgotten - Luis Salom
http://mythoughtsabout2wheels.blogspot.se/2016/06/when-tragedy-strikes.html (http://mythoughtsabout2wheels.blogspot.se/2016/06/when-tragedy-strikes.html)
#Mexicano39
Quote from: Hawk on June 05, 2016, 10:45:52 PM
Not at all. In the 70's a lot of race tracks had hardly any run-off areas at all and were very unsafe, but all most major tracks nowadays are very safe indeed, but there will always be freak situations that no matter what you do to make them any safer someone is going to get killed at some point in time.
OK, so we agree on that. Now: in your opinion, is turn 12 (original layout) safe enough for Moto2/MotoGP racing ?
The answer is no, as we've just seen.
But give that turn a better run-off and I'm all too happy to keep it as it is.
Quote from: davidboda46 on June 06, 2016, 12:18:20 AM
Forever missed, never forgotten - Luis Salom
http://mythoughtsabout2wheels.blogspot.se/2016/06/when-tragedy-strikes.html (http://mythoughtsabout2wheels.blogspot.se/2016/06/when-tragedy-strikes.html)
#Mexicano39
QuoteOf course racers die in other motorsports as well, something we unfortunately get reminded of all too often when it comes to road racing. But, how absurd as this might sound, I more or less expect it when it comes to events like the Isle of Man TT, which in no way lessens the tragedy when it happens.
Exactly.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 06, 2016, 06:46:37 AM
Quote from: Hawk on June 05, 2016, 10:45:52 PM
Not at all. In the 70's a lot of race tracks had hardly any run-off areas at all and were very unsafe, but all most major tracks nowadays are very safe indeed, but there will always be freak situations that no matter what you do to make them any safer someone is going to get killed at some point in time.
OK, so we agree on that. Now: in your opinion, is turn 12 (original layout) safe enough for Moto2/MotoGP racing ?
The answer is no, as we've just seen.
But give that turn a better run-off and I'm all too happy to keep it as it is.
Now that is what they should be looking to do on turn 12, or if they think it's not possible then to put a series of catch fences in like they used to years ago in the 70's and early 80's to gradually absorb the energy of the crash. That I would totally agree with and would be the sensible option rather than ruining the original track layout by putting a chicane in to slow them down at that corner. :)
Yeah, I mean don't get me wrong Max, we are definitely on the same page as far as safety is concerned, but accepting a chicane as a solution to safety when there are definitely other more sensible solutions is were we differ. They should always look to keeping the original layout of these classic tracks but just try to design in something that will make an accident less likely to be so serious. But again, no measures will ever guarantee a safe ending from a crash at fast sections of circuits even if you put in a massive run-off area at those points. It's about doing what can be done to make it safer but at the same time getting things into perspective so that there is no over reactions taken in the emotion of a tragic event.
Hawk.
PS: In answer to your first sentence: It's a high risk corner due to the speed and with the run-off area not being really adequate enough for the speed concerned. But would I still run races using that corner? Yes indeed I would, because the competitors know the risks, and the chances of a freak crash like that are very unlikely. If the track was that dangerous in the minds of the competitors then they would boycott the event like they have done with other circuits in the past. So obviously the main stay of the riders are happy to still use the track.
The chicane was the short term solution, for the week-end nothing else was possible.
But if for some reason the run-off can't be improved, the chicane (or a different layout of turn 12, basically to slow it down) will become the only solution.
Then yes, risk will always be there. But for a track, safe does not need to mean boring, so there's no reason not to have safe tracks.
Some original layouts absolutely need to be redesigned, because performances do change over time. Classic example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodromo_Nazionale_Monza (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodromo_Nazionale_Monza)
Would you fancy taking a modern days f1 over the 20's banked corner ? No, unless as a driver you are OK to get off the car (eventually) 10cm shorter than when you get on it :)
The GOAT (Rossi) itself, saying it clearly (quote in italian, translation is mine):
QuoteSulle modifiche della pista Rossi ha poi aggiunto: «La pista nella sua configurazione originaria è più bella. Ma i punti pericolosi effettivamente esistono. Se si vuole tornare al tracciato precedente bisogna lavorare sui punti di fuga, altrimenti si dovrà continuare così».
QuoteAbout the changes to the track, Rossi added: "The track in its original configuration is more pleasant. But the dangerous spots do exist. If we want to go back to the original layout we need to work on the run-off areas, else we'll have to keep the modified layout."
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 06, 2016, 08:20:57 AM
The chicane was the short term solution, for the week-end nothing else was possible.
But if for some reason the run-off can't be improved, the chicane (or a different layout of turn 12, basically to slow it down) will become the only solution.
Then yes, risk will always be there. But for a track, safe does not need to mean boring, so there's no reason not to have safe tracks.
Some original layouts absolutely need to be redesigned, because performances do change over time. Classic example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodromo_Nazionale_Monza (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodromo_Nazionale_Monza)
Would you fancy taking a modern days f1 over the 20's banked corner ? No, unless as a driver you are OK to get off the car (eventually) 10cm shorter than when you get on it :)
Not even sure the mordern cars could do that thinking how low they have become :P
But jokes aside, yes it would be good to keep old tracks and it is a dangerous sport, but as the technology gets better and bikes gets faster, this calls for more safety such as chicanes, bigger run-off etc.
Us (racers) do live for what we do and would do it no matter the danger (pretty much at least), but this doesn't mean we all want better safety if possible. I have been very lucky with my crashes, but to be honest, it could have ended up much worse, crashing out of 2nd last corner at mantorp (you know pit entrance and barrier is VERY close there and no run-off area there), me and the bike went into the barrier, i luckily only twisted my ankle and bike was little damaged, but had it been a bigger bike than 125GP it could have gone much worse.
What MotoGP needs is a guy in control who can say to the track owners, "We don't want no crappy chicanes because we want you to keep the tracks historic character, so get a big enough run-off area installed at that danger point or the track will be dropped from the MotoGP Calendar. Period!". That is the sort of guy MotoGP needs. No messing, either they do it or the track is off the calendar. Simple. ;D
Hawk.
Haha that could work too, but some corners would need a massive run-off area haha :D
Quote from: Meyer#12 on June 07, 2016, 04:05:55 PM
Haha that could work too, but some corners would need a massive run-off area haha :D
Well that is so true Meyer. Lol.
This is why we need to keep things in perspective when unfortunate accidents happen, because let's assume that even if there was an adequate run-off area at that pint were Luis crashed; there is no reason that his bike couldn't have for some reason stopped before the end of the new run-off area and Luis still have hit his bike. This is what I'm trying to say to people who think these run-off areas will make it a safe area to crash. It maybe would be "safer" for most accidents, but there will always be one or more freak accidents(like Luis accident) that no safety measures can account for.
Any crash at high speed holds a great danger of killing a competitor, so what do we do? Make all tracks so that competitors cannot get above a certain speed at any point on the track except maybe straights? I think this is were certain safety ideas are crazy in my opinion, and would greatly take away from the fascination of motorsport of which the speed and subsequent danger that goes with that speed is a big part.
As I've said before. If we made every track so safe that no one could ever get hurt then all competitors might as well pack-up and sit in front of their PC playing GPB instead, because it's a fact that the danger and high speeds are a great part of the publics fascination with motorsports. :)
Hawk.
Totally agree Hawk!
Motorsport is dangerous and everyone who is racing know this and that is also what can determine the best from the rest, in some corners you really need balls to make it around fast and some people just don't dare to do that. It's a part of the sport and we racers are willing to risk it all for the sport we love and live for.
I totally agree, we can't get all tracks 100% safe unless we go around at 20kph, but in a corner like that and other places, a little more run off could have help. A longer run-off and some gravel in the run-off could have maybe kept Luis alive stopping him before bike or making bike or Luis bounce out of the same trajectory. But we will never know, it could have well have been bike stopping in gravel and Luis hitting that. Freak accidents will happen like we have seen before. It is impossible to avoid.
"SAG Team Press Release: Telemetry Analysis Shows Cause of Salom's Crash
The SAG Team issued the following press release, containing their analysis of the data from Luis Salom's bike during the crash which cost the Spaniard his life:
Official SAG Team press release after the deep telemetry analysis done on Luis Salom's bike
On Friday June 3rd Luis Salom passed away during the Gran Premi of Catalunya FP2 session after an accident suffered at the turn 12 of the Catalunya circuit.
After receiving the telemetry data yesterday Sunday June 5th by the organization, the technical staff of the SAG Team held immediately a meeting to personally determinate the facts of the accident and to communicate afterwards with exactitude what happened in technical terms at the fatal turn 12 of the Circuit of Catalunya. In the comprehensive analysis done on the telemetry data assisted the owner of the team Edu Perales, the team manager Jordi Rubio, the chief mechanic of Luis Salom Bernat Bassa, the chief mechanic of Jesko Raffin Michael Ferger, the Moto2 rider Jesko Raffin and the manager of Luis Salom Marco Rodrigo.
During the course of the FP2, Luis Salom faced his first laps and makes his best lap (1'48.608) before making his first pit stop to change the rear tire of the bike. After that, Salom comes back on the track and during that same out of the pits lap he suffers the accident. In that lap, Luis arrived to the turn 12 braking reference point 6 km/h slower than his fastest lap, according to the telemetry that was because a lower acceleration at the exit of turn 11. Due to that reduced speed, Luis operated the brakes 9 meters later to maintain a proper corner speed at the turn 12. At the entry of the corner there is an irregularity on the asphalt known by all the riders (bump). The delay of the braking instant made Luis to maintain the brakes operated running over that asphalt irregularity, as opposed the previous laps where he already had released the brakes on that spot. All of that added to an even speed than his best lap of the FP2 produced a stress on the front tire and a grip lost on the irregularity of the asphalt. That grip lost produced the crash with the tragic outcome that we all know.
These telemetry data provided by the organization are available to any qualified technician with desires to analyze it."
Quote from: Hawk on June 07, 2016, 03:15:46 PM
What MotoGP needs is a guy in control who can say to the track owners, "We don't want no crappy chicanes because we want you to keep the tracks historic character, so get a big enough run-off area installed at that danger point or the track will be dropped from the MotoGP Calendar. Period!". That is the sort of guy MotoGP needs. No messing, either they do it or the track is off the calendar. Simple. ;D
And this would be totally fine with me. But I'm surprised that, assuming for some reason they can't improve the run-off, you prefer to lose the Catalunya track (probably replaced by some obscure GP in the middle of the desert) instead of having its layout modified a bit. If the chicane is the only solution, I take the chicane: the rest of the track is still a pleasure to watch.
We all agree it's a dangerous sport per se, but there's no reason to make it even more dangerous racing on tracks that are not adapted to the performances of the bikes.
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 08, 2016, 06:34:00 AM
Quote from: Hawk on June 07, 2016, 03:15:46 PM
What MotoGP needs is a guy in control who can say to the track owners, "We don't want no crappy chicanes because we want you to keep the tracks historic character, so get a big enough run-off area installed at that danger point or the track will be dropped from the MotoGP Calendar. Period!". That is the sort of guy MotoGP needs. No messing, either they do it or the track is off the calendar. Simple. ;D
And this would be totally fine with me. But I'm surprised that, assuming for some reason they can't improve the run-off, you prefer to lose the Catalunya track (probably replaced by some obscure GP in the middle of the desert) instead of having its layout modified a bit. If the chicane is the only solution, I take the chicane: the rest of the track is still a pleasure to watch.
We all agree it's a dangerous sport per se, but there's no reason to make it even more dangerous racing on tracks that are not adapted to the performances of the bikes.
+1 on this one Max!
Exactly what i mean too :)
Quote from: HornetMaX on June 08, 2016, 06:34:00 AM
Quote from: Hawk on June 07, 2016, 03:15:46 PM
What MotoGP needs is a guy in control who can say to the track owners, "We don't want no crappy chicanes because we want you to keep the tracks historic character, so get a big enough run-off area installed at that danger point or the track will be dropped from the MotoGP Calendar. Period!". That is the sort of guy MotoGP needs. No messing, either they do it or the track is off the calendar. Simple. ;D
And this would be totally fine with me. But I'm surprised that, assuming for some reason they can't improve the run-off, you prefer to lose the Catalunya track (probably replaced by some obscure GP in the middle of the desert) instead of having its layout modified a bit. If the chicane is the only solution, I take the chicane: the rest of the track is still a pleasure to watch.
We all agree it's a dangerous sport per se, but there's no reason to make it even more dangerous racing on tracks that are not adapted to the performances of the bikes.
The point is Max, there is no such thing as "
Can't be done", "
Were there's a will there's a way" right? ;D
I mean if they really wanted to keep the historic character of a track(which they always should do) then they would do what was required to make the danger points safer. But as is human nature(probably a Scottish gene in people. Lol) they will always take the cheaper option given the opportunity, and someone with the kind of authority to basically force them to do what would be required to keep the tracks historic character alive or they lose the right to hold a GP event would be a VERY strong incentive to do what's right. :)
Putting in chicanes is usually the cheapest option for the club owner to fullfill the new safety requirements and it's chicanes that in my personal opinion, and many competitors, that have ruined many historic tracks throughout the last few decades in the name of safety measures. Chicanes should be banned unless they are specifically designed into any new layout for reasons other than just to slow competitors down.
You have to remember that competitors can get killed at much slower speeds too, so again I talk about getting things into perspective as far as the argument that because of the greater speeds due to advances in tech that more safety measures are required on circuits.
But talking about safety measures..... Maybe we should look at it from another point of view and in the name of safety and to slow them down we should stop competitors using electronics because they give the rider a SO much easier ride compared to the old days and therefore a sense that they can take higher risks, so maybe they should start to go back to the old school tyres and no electronics to put the fear of god back into riders these days. Lol! ;D ;D
Hawk.
PS:But I guess a chicane will be the option that will be adopted unfortunately.... Yet another classic track gone down the drain I suspect. >:(
Quote from: Hawk on June 08, 2016, 10:08:28 AM
The point is Max, there is no such thing as "Can't be done", "Were there's a will there's a way" right? ;D
Wrong. In some cases, it can't be done at all, or it can't be done within reasonable budget. When it can be done, they do it and we're all happy.