Luis Salom :(

[HornetMaX]

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

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.

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.

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 ...

[LOOPATELI]

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.

[HornetMaX]

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

[Hawk]

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

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.

[HornetMaX]

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".

[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".

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 

Hawk.

[davidboda46]

Forever missed, never forgotten - Luis Salom
http://mythoughtsabout2wheels.blogspot.se/2016/06/when-tragedy-strikes.html
#Mexicano39 

[HornetMaX]

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.

Forever missed, never forgotten - Luis Salom
http://mythoughtsabout2wheels.blogspot.se/2016/06/when-tragedy-strikes.html
#Mexicano39 

Of 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.

[Hawk]

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.

[HornetMaX]

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
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

[HornetMaX]

The GOAT (Rossi) itself, saying it clearly (quote in italian, translation is mine):

Sulle 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».

About 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."

[Meyer#12]

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
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

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.

[Hawk]

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. 

Hawk.

[Meyer#12]

Haha that could work too, but some corners would need a massive run-off area haha

[Hawk]

Haha that could work too, but some corners would need a massive run-off area haha

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.