TBK-Light.com

Gary Anderson: The lessons of Suzuka

F1 must learn from Jules Bianchi's horrific accident in the Japanese Grand Prix. GARY ANDERSON analyses what happened and what can be done to prevent a repeat

In all aspects of life, people tend to plough on without looking back. But when something goes badly wrong, we must reflect and understand whether anything could have been done to change what has occurred and therefore avoid a repeat of that outcome.

What happened to Jules Bianchi at Suzuka is a prime example of a time when it is vitally important to do just that.

Yes, motorsport is dangerous. Risk will always be there to some extent.

But it is a question of managing that risk. In that regard, I believe the FIA actually did a good job in difficult circumstances at Suzuka on Sunday.

Even so, there are always lessons to be learned and things that can be improved. So the FIA needs to analyse everything that happened and draw up a list of any necessary changes, and then implement them.

You can argue that hindsight is always 20/20. I can assure you this is not a kneejerk reaction. This comes from the heart of someone who feels for everyone that suffers when accidents like this happen.

I have been there and suffered that pain. It is not a nice place to be.

But this process must be completed scientifically, so I will approach each incident in isolation.

1) Due to adverse weather at Suzuka on race day, should the race have been run on Saturday or started earlier on Sunday?

My answer to this is no. Many plan their lives around an event like this and the TV slots are set, so it can't just be changed on a whim.

What should have happened was that when the calendar for 2014 was set, the race should have been scheduled to take place at an earlier time.

The reasons for this are simple. We have been to Suzuka and Fuji in conditions like this many times, but we never seem to learn.

There is a maximum track-action duration of two hours and if there are stoppages for any reason, a total event time of four hours.

At Suzuka at this time of year it starts to get dark at around 5pm. So taking this into account, the race should have started at the latest 1pm and not 3pm.

It makes no sense to run at a track where it gets dark during the regulated four-hour slot. Malaysia is another event that suffers from this, as we saw with the shortened race in 2009.

Would this have fixed the problems that created one of the saddest weekends in Formula 1 since Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger were killed at Imola in 1994? Probably not.

But it certainly wouldn't have done any harm if everything was happening a bit earlier in the day at Suzuka, with better light.

2) Should the race have started at the allotted start time behind the safety car?

Yes, I think this was correct. There wasn't time available to delay the start because of the risk of running out of light.

But perhaps that decision was taken for the wrong reasons.

It got the clock ticking on the four-hour rule, so if the weather got worse, the race couldn't be postponed until Monday. Imagine the consequences of that, with a race in Russia next weekend.

3) Should the race have been stopped after two laps behind the safety car?

I don't think so. The best way of moving water is to have the cars running on the track.

Yes, there were a few puddles here and there, but another two or three laps behind the safety car at that time would have dispersed them.

4) When the race was restarted, should the safety car have stayed out as long as it did?

No, the safety car should have come in three or four laps earlier. Lewis Hamilton, Daniel Ricciardo and Jean-Eric Vergne were saying on the radio that the track was good to go, but the FIA didn't listen.

These drivers were all running in different levels of traffic and, in turn, spray, with different makes of chassis and looking at different outcomes from the race - and all came to the same conclusion.

But still we had to watch those extra unnecessary laps behind the safety car.

5) And now the main point: the horrific and unnecessary accident that befell Jules Bianchi...

I have been around motorsport for a long time - my first F1 race was the Spanish Grand Prix at Montjuich Park in 1973.

Since then, I have seen many changes. During the '70s, it wasn't uncommon for one, two or even three drivers to lose their lives during the season. Thankfully, we've moved on from those days.

Since 1994, when we lost Ratzenberger and Senna at Imola, the cars have improved in leaps and bounds to the extent that I'm afraid to say some of the drivers think they are almost invincible.

That same year, again at Suzuka, Martin Brundle had an accident at the same corner as Bianchi in very wet conditions. He was only centimetres away from suffering similar consequences.

Instead, he hit a marshal who was on the side of the track attending to an earlier incident. Thankfully, the marshal suffered only a broken leg, for it could have been much worse.

There have been massive improvements in crash barriers and run-off areas over the years. But the one thing that hasn't changed is we still have digger-type vehicles trundling onto the run-off areas with no protection to stop a car going underneath them.

A steel skirt around the digger hanging on chains from the rollcage should be possible, but as we race in many different places, with different equipment, that could be logistically difficult.

It's not only the diggers that create a potential problem. Just look back to the German GP, when Adrian Sutil spun exiting the last corner. A number of marshals were on the track trying to move the car.

Just imagine if someone else had spun. How many of those marshals would potentially have been hit?

Races could not happen without the dedication of the volunteer marshals, so they need to be protected – and protected sometimes from themselves, as it's very easy to get too enthusiastic when an incident happens in front of you.

When the yellow flag is waved, we rely on the drivers to slow down. When it's a double yellow, they should slow down even more. But what is slowing down to one driver is not necessarily the same to another.

I agree that it is very difficult to get a crashed car off the track without the use of a digger, or having marshals remove it. Siting a crane at every corner would be difficult, but I believe there's a much simpler answer.

The cars have electronic speed limiters. They are very effective and are used for pit speed control. We have seen races with 60 or more pitstops without anyone being caught for speeding. Surely it's possible for this system to be adapted for use on the track...

A yellow flag means slow down. As a driver enters the yellow flag zone, he presses the track speed button on the steering wheel, which means the maximum speed – which I suggest is set at 100km/h to begin with – is controlled by the electronics.

When he sees the next green flag, he can reset it and off he goes back up to racing speed. This way everyone slows to the same speed, so no one gets an advantage by just going that little bit faster.

It would also be instant and could be used for just yellow flag sections where the incident has happened, or indeed the complete lap if necessary.

This would then give the safety car driver the opportunity to wait at the end of the pitlane and immediately pick up the leader, which is something they seem to struggle with currently.

At Suzuka they picked up Jenson Button, then after half a lap released him to go around at speed to pick up the rear of the train.

The system I am describing already exists, so it could be used immediately. Please, this is 2014 – use the technology we've already got. React to what is happening in front of us and reduce the risk to drivers and marshals with immediate effect.

My thoughts, and the thoughts of many millions of F1 enthusiasts, are with you, Jules.

We must not, however, become emotional and hysterical whenever we see cranes and marshals on the track. Both are very often needed during many sessions, in every racing series.
You can test if these pictures give you shivers (they shouldn't).





After this accident it's easy to think "what if something happens" during the yellows flags, only forgetting that 99,99 % of the times nothing happens. Of course with aquaplaning chances of multiple cars losing at the same corner increases, and when the corner is flooding it's 100% sure that a car approaching the turn loses it if it has not decelerated enough.
I see everyone (Bianchi, Charlie and the marshals) underestimated the chances.

You can't rely on drivers to be disciplined, not even with in-race penalties. The very nature of a race driver is short memory, and leaving any accident thoughts far behind (otherwise they wouldn't be able to race in the first place). I am not a racer but I've been a young crackhead, and I've also heard countless driver interviews stating this fact.

Unless there is a physical barrier that prevents the occurrence (speed limiters, pace cars, walls...), counting on personal responsibility and penalties will only work for a few races, after which they will start behaving like they're invincible again.

for a couple of years i've been a motorsport photographer. There was this particular track where in a particular spot good for taking pictures a single guard rail separates two opposite parts of the circuit. You, as a photographer, had to stay on one side of it, protecting yourself from cars coming from the other side but completely exposing your back to the cars coming behind you in the opposite direction. And that was considered completely normal. Plus, being a photographer, your attention is totally absorbed by the viewfinder, so you have no real idea of what's happening behind you. Just two cars clipping each others and you're done because you have no protection. And that is considered completely normal on that particular track. Track director allows it, photographers do it, marshall won't stop you, drivers never complained. This will keep being considered normal till someone will eventually get killed. It may never happen but the recipe for a fatality it's just there for everyone to see. It's not what happens that matters, it's what could happen and what you could do to avoid it. If you can do very little to avoid a very big problem than i think it's better to do it.

by the way, just to know how security is handled, everybody that goes on a live track in any kind of race, marshalls, cameraman, photographers, doctors, ( at least in my country ) has to sign this contract where he declares that he assumes all the responsability for whatever happens to him and the track will not be considered responsable for anything. Had to sign this thing on all the italian circuits i've been ( Monza, Vallelunga, Varano, Adria, Imola ) I don't even know if this is legal but they won't give you track pass if you don't sign that. I would assume ok a "if you screw, blame on you" policy but a "if you die whatever happens, we will not get involved" one it's how actually they care about crew safety. and i think there's so much room for improvement on this side.

if drivers weren't adrenaline addicted, competitive, cocky and wreckless and were instead rational and well behaved people they would have not been drivers in first place.

Good piece by Will buxton:
http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/20 ... in-suzuka/

The second, and of vital importance, was the reason for the use of the ambulance. As Bonciani gave the statement, the medical helicopter was taking off behind him, thus immediately calling into question the very statement given.

In actual fact the ambulance, we now understand, had been used for medical reasons rather than for any meteorological factor. Had this one simple fact been corrected immediately, a lot of the confusion and fallout post race would have been eliminated.

One of the thousands to watch the video is Prost himself, who said he was alarmed to see that a marshal right next to the incident was waving a green flag.

"It should have been at least a hundred meters away," Prost said.

This is the first I've heard this. Interested to know more about the medical reasons behind choosing the ambulance over the helicopter.

As harsh as this sounds, who would be in line to replace Jules if Marussia chose to run? Rossi?

With only one week between the 2 races, obviously without repairing Jules's car (The car is probably under investigation by local police), I think the most probable situation is that Marussia will run only with Chilton.