June 11, 2011
A thought about the big Audi crash at Le Mans
Manufacturers have an opportunity to make a point relating to their consumer safety products. Blind spot detection system are now pretty standard, why not mandate an implementation of those systems for LMS GT cars. It could be as simple as two LED or , perhaps integrate a screen as a extra rear view mirror, like on the Ferrari FXX. In fact it could even have enhanced night vision... Just a thought.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Timo saw the car and balked, McNish saw it and tried a move that could be charitably described as an optimistic one. Queue the mandatory comment from Dr. Ulrich about GT cars getting out of the way.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of the comment from the LMP driver last year, after forcing a Corvette off the track. "My race is more important then yours, since I am in a prototype" (paraphrased)
-B
(yes, this is being posted after Rocky's crash, which was the fault of a GT car not looking in his mirrors)
The Corvettes have had a video camera in the rear of their car in place of a mirror, since they obviously can't have a mirror, for years now. They've made it work great.
ReplyDeleteTo the above poster, Davidson ran the Vette wide last year where the Vette was absolutely on the limit and then was a complete dick about it. The only reason he got away with that and the numerous other serious infractions was because he was in a Peugeot going for the win.
The cameraman in the blue bib was completely oblivious to what had happened. Missed the money shot...
ReplyDeleteReally glad the Audi didn't lift off the ground another foot or two, we could have been looking at a lot of dead people.
As much as I love McNish and wanted him and Audi to win this year, I think I'm with Anonymous on this one. I'm sure the Ferrari saw Timo take a peek, back off, and figured okay I'm good for this turn. With the closing speeds, speed difference and the fact it was barely an hour into the race -- I don't think anyone saw that kind of a ballsy ass move coming. I suppose I'd just chalk it up to a "racing incident" instead of pointing a finger directly at someone... but if I had to I think it'd have to hover over near McNish that time.
ReplyDeleteWith how technologically advanced these cars are, I'm also with AC. I just don't understand why with how blind you are in those high fendered coupe LMP1 cars, they don't have a mandated camera system for blind spots, let alone just for the GT cars for the closing speeds they have to deal with.
If anything I would guarantee that's the last time that turn has as little in the means of spectator protection as it does this year. Like Toeknee said, another foot or so and it wouldn't just be a disappointing crash but a horrific Le Mans incident.
UhHuh, I bring up Davidson's comment from last year because it seems to illustrate the attitude some (all?) LMP1 drivers have towards GT cars. I can't wait to see what McNish says about the incident, but I'm sure it will put all the blame on the GT guy -- as the quote from the team already has.
ReplyDelete-B
McNish's accident was more his fault than the GT driver. It was almost a rookie mistake, he was too eager to overtake, and let's be honest, you shouldn't be doing those kinds of things in H1. Still, if that accident wasn't proof of the higher safety of that shark fin and closed cockpits, I don't know what is. The shark fin basically kept that car from taking flight when it went sideways, which is exactly why it's there
ReplyDeleteRockenfeller's accident, on the other hand, was completely the fault of the inexperienced GT driver in the Ferrari. Like Andrew Marriott said, the ACO need to be way more strict about who they let race in Le Mans. Some of these GTE Am drivers are definitely not fit to be racing at La Sarthe. Hopefully the FIA will aid them with that next year with the WEC underway.
The question really is, with a system like that and the sheer closing speed we're looking at, would it make a difference?
ReplyDeleteIf a prototype comes diving down the side of your car, the time where the system is triggered, then noticed by the driver who is concentrating on the corner and then takes evasive action would more than likely not be enough.
The system works perfectly for road cars, but we're talking about cars hiding in a blind spot, not cars closing in on your car with a huge speed difference.
I'm all for making it easier for multi-class racing, but even implementing 'fishey' or 'panorama' lense cameras would probably not be enough.
And i agree with everybody, major lucky for the guys behind the wall.
Agreed with many above. I love McNish, but that was his fault. And technically, after listening to John on Radio LeMans around the 6am (Le Mans local) mark talk about it.. I kind of agree that the Rockenfeller crash was the fault of the LMP as well. Not to say both weren't horrible accidents that shouldn't have happened.. but both could've been avoided in numerous ways.
ReplyDeleteIf AC doesn't mind this discussion branching into the Rockenfeller crash, what do folks think about the ACO yanking Kaufmann out of his car, while doing nothing about McNish's move? Any thoughts on the interview with Kaufmann on Speed's coverage, where his point is that he was following what was said in the driver's meeting.
ReplyDelete-B
I think that Kaufmann needed to be removed because the guy has very little experience racing with multiple types of cars at once. There was some fault of Rockenfeller, but it was a rookie move of Kaufmann to move into the apex. McNish is a proven successful driver in multi-discipline events. I mean, the ACO couldn't really do anything, the guy was out of the race, who were they gonna punish? Even still, Kaufmann staying in would be much more dangerous than McNish staying in...
ReplyDeleteWhat could the aco do? Fines? A press release saying who was to blame? Have you missed the way audi is saying that both crashes were the fault of the gt driver? Did you see the quote on the lemans website about how the lmp guys were driving?
ReplyDeleteOn another note, what happened to the idea that its up to the overtaking driver to make a safe pass?
Mario, did you see the interview with Kaufmann? He said that he was doing as told by the aco...
-B
I saw the interview, but the only other interview & quotes I saw was the interview Allan McNish gave to Autosport where he absolutely did not fault the GT driver in his accident.
ReplyDeleteFines & a press release wouldn't really matter. Next year, with the FIA sanctioned championship it might make a difference, but as it stands none of those solutions matter much. Audi can - and will - say what they want. They were complaining today of the Peugeot's blocking them when they did exactly the same thing to the Peugeot's in Spa earlier in the year. Whining is common in Motorsport, but the complaints don't necessarily make the rules. Unless they are warranted. The overtaking driver (Rockenfeller) WAS trying to make a safe pass, but the rookie in the Ferrari cut right before the much faster LMP went though. There is a clear hierarchy of importance at Le Mans, and the P1's are at the top, the GT's at the bottom. Here's a quote from Kaufmann's co-driver, Michael Waltrip:
"We're running in the GTE division, and it can be very hard to stay out of the way of the prototype cars in the premier class. They tell you, "Hold your line, and they'll go around you," but one mistake can end your race. They're so much faster than the GTE cars. I know they're not supposed to run over me, but I need to do whatever I can to make sure I don't get run over. That means giving them the room to go. It's like a Formula One car catching you. The tricky part is you can't see well out of the car. You see lights behind you, and if it's a prototype, they consume you in seconds. Two-time Le Mans champion Allan McNish said the prototype drivers will commit a couple hundred yards before reaching a GT car. They lap 40 seconds quicker than us, so you deal with one every lap. "
Rockenfeller committed to his line more than 100 YARDS before he got to the Ferrari. The Ferrari could well have stayed to the left and not lost any time. The fact is that the guy was underqualified, and he wasn't the only one. Quite a few of the GT drivers were making a circus of the race.
If McNish had remained in the race, then I would back a penalty, but after you crash there's nothing to say, or do anymore. Such is the nature of a Le Mans race that isn't in a proper championship. Next year, it being in an FIA world Championship, I'm sure that'll change. But the one thing that can be done is upping the experience requirements for the drivers that are allowed to enter - particularly in the GT class.
Mario, I wish them the best of luck in finding "qualified" drivers going forward, since "qualified" = "drivers who are in series that have multiple classes with a serious speed differential"
ReplyDelete"underqualified" = "a rookie that crashed an audi"
While doing what he was told in the drivers meeting. Guess they didn't expect someone to actually be listening during it.
If the Ferrari (in both cases) had been the car flying into the fence, do you think the ACO would of had the balls to give either Audi more then a stop and go?
In his interviews on Speed, McNish was only conceding that it was a "racing accident"
-B
Yes, the Rockenfeller crash is a sticky one.. the guy did follow what he was told in the drivers meeting.. but in THAT situation, it wasn't the right thing to do. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
ReplyDeleteI've heard from multiple announcers and drivers that in the drivers meeting before the race the ACO told all of the drivers that the GT cars were to keep the racing line and that the prototypes were to find a way around them. I have no sources, actually I can't find any reports online that say so, but I've heard it on TV by announcers on Speed and a few interviews of the drivers.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I am fundamentally opposed to this "he did what they told him to do in the drivers' meeting" argument because on the track you are supposed to do what is safest. He saw the prototype, he even moved left but then out of nowhere decided to come back to the right side. A more experienced driver would have let the car go by, because in the Ferrari, at those speeds, in that location, you simply DO NOT have to apex the curve. The fact that he's going around saying "i did what they told me to" simply proves that point. If the guy didn't have the obvious instinct to keep left in that situation, which would've posed no safety threat to him, neither would it have significantly affected his race, then he is probably too inexperienced to drive at this level, and should be refrained from doing so. If it were a few years ago Rockenfeller would probably have died, or seriously injured himself in a crash like that. What the ACO told him to do was, like Marc said, not the right thing to do. A more experienced racer would've known.
ReplyDeleteI can understand you being angry with the ACO's double standards, it makes sense, and to answer the question: no I don't think they would've had the guts to penalize the Audi's - BUT it makes no difference to the fact that what Kaufmann did was simply a dangerous racing move stemming from lack of experience in similar situations. Hopefully when the FIA get more seriously involved with the race there will be more pressing & important sanctions to both sides, not just the GT drivers. Right now Audi (or Peugeot, for that matter) aren't fighting for a Championship - only a race. Hopefully next year that will change, and they will all be more careful about what they say and how they act.
Well Mario, if the ACO has told them on multiple occasions for the GT drivers to maintain their line, would you not? They've had the problem of P1 cars making extremely stupid and impatient moves on much slower cars and they were told to calm down and the GT drivers were to maintain the racing line. One simply has to look at Davidson last year to see what happens when a dickhead P1 driver is more concerned with his race than safety. There is also the issue of drivers complaining about the extreme brightness of the R18s headlights, he may have simply not realized he was as close as he was and maintained his line because of it. Simple fact is, the ACO told everyone to do something, a guy does it and then he's punished for it. Even with the wreck, Kaufmann did the right thing. Even with the rule, GT drivers continue to get screwed over and cut off by impatient P1 drivers.
ReplyDeleteAlso Mario, he was doing what he was told because the P1 guys were told the same thing, GT drivers were to maintain the racing line. Why? Because then everyone would know exactly where everyone else would go on the race track.
ReplyDeleteWell, according to Jalopnik, the 2nd accident happened at the end of the mulsanne (despite my attempts at correcting their 'article') so the GT would have been at fault, slicing across a virtual non-existant kink.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that it was the 2nd kink on the approach to Indy, which is flat out for a GT and LMP unless the GT was way, way offline. I was watching the Audi feed live when the accident happened and I suspect Kauffman thought he was about to be abducted by a low-flying UFO (or an incredibly fast mobile rave platform) since the Audi was flashing for several solid seconds on the run up to the kink.
I'm not sure I'd pin the blame entirely on the GT driver given the apparent driver's instructions, and the fact that in both these cases the LMP driver dove to the inside of a much larger car in turns where, had they waited another 50 yards to make the move, they'd have had plenty of room get by. Speed is nothing without the patience to exercise it properly. I'm not faulting the LMP drivers completely, either, but they both had the ability to wait another half second before making the moves that eventually took them out of the race (and could have killed them in years gone by)
What, Jalopnik get facts totally wrong... Impossible! :)
ReplyDelete