Luis Salom :(

[Vini]

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.

[Meyer#12]

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.

[Vini]

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.

[Tom HWK]

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.

[HornetMaX]

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.

[Hawk]

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! 

Hawk.

[HornetMaX]

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.

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.

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! 

[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.

[Hawk]

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.

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.

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! 

[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.

[HornetMaX]

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.

[Vini]

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 ?

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.

[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.

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. 

[Vini]

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.

[HornetMaX]

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 ...

[Tom HWK]

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

[Vini]

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.

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.

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 ...

Do you have a source for this?
That sounds pretty fishy, even for Dorna.

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.

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

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.