Is Eau Rouge Too Dangerous?

[Andrew Harper]

Ok. Well in the first instance Eau Rouge is far improved compared to even ten years ago. Where the runoff was far less and the danger much greater.

I agree though. The amount of runoff is probably as good as they can achieve with the terrain in the area. However they need to improve the crash impact area. Whether that's TECHPRO or SAFER doesn't matter but it's important that accidents like these are seen as warnings that some improvements need to be made. This isn't about "wimping out" it's about basic common sense.

The two WEC accidents were interesting. The Fittipaldi accident was bad as the suspension pierced the tub and into his legs. This shouldn't happen by design and I wouldn't be surprised if the ACO and FIA are investigating the chassis and it's design. If not they should be.

The airborne accident was blamed partly on the car and driver by those at the scene. He was closely following the Toyota? And the loss of front downforce caused the front to lift up and the car just took off. Again I can see the ACO being concerned about this. The designs of the cars were altered to try and prevent this happening.

I don't want to see the cars being slowed down but it's important that the danger signs are noted and acted upon now. Hi tech crash barriers are nothing in cost terms compared to a driver being badly injured.

 

[delpinsky]

Don't touch Eau Rouge!
Just tell the drivers to step up a little the right foot from the throttle, approaching this fast S corner.
Every road in every city of this planet can be dangerous if you drive like a thunderbolt using a brick instead of the foot.

 

[wombat999]

Leave it alone.

 

[kedy89]

way too dangerous, they definitely should reinstall the '94 F1 chicane.



jk

 

[Raikku]

No its not. We should stop whining how this or that is "too" dangerous.

 

[Wil.]

If you have a car thats "too fast" (don't really understand what that means, I guess we should never race in Monaco any longer) for a corner or a particular surface, you have the ability of braking, lifting and steering to adjust it, thats what skilled driving is all about isn't it?
Racing without danger wouldn't be racing, drivers have to calculate the risk, thats an essential part of racing. Too much safety could destroy the fascination of motorsports.

 

[Richard Dastardly]

But as some people said after car crashes: "The broken arm wasn't a problem really, but the crash itself got me scared so deeply that I couldn't drive for some time."
Or in other words: it's not only the injury that gets you scared/traumatized. It's the experience and situation on it's own.

I think if you're going to get traumatized by crashes where you're nominally in control of the vehicle, racing is not the sport for you - and TBH if you're scared of crashing you're never going to be fast. I've lived through two car crashes that almost killed me & haven't been bothered, but I have had quite bad PTSD from other events so I'm well aware of how people are different.

One might consider that as it gets safer to crash drivers are going to push the limits more & be more likely to go off.

The two WEC accidents were interesting. The Fittipaldi accident was bad as the suspension pierced the tub and into his legs. This shouldn't happen by design and I wouldn't be surprised if the ACO and FIA are investigating the chassis and it's design. If not they should be.

Yes - that definitely needs checking. I'm not sure you can really test for every accident vector though - maybe you can comprehensively check computationally how a structure will deform these days, I don't know.

The airborne accident was blamed partly on the car and driver by those at the scene. He was closely following the Toyota? And the loss of front downforce caused the front to lift up and the car just took off. Again I can see the ACO being concerned about this. The designs of the cars were altered to try and prevent this happening.

That on the other hand I don't think is so important from the perspective of car safety design. He *wasn't* following the Toyota at that point, he was halfway across the runoff on the inside of Radillon. That was the same driver that was out in the countryside on the outside of Blanchemant not that long before, & looking distinctly worrying around other cars. If the race director was doing his job properly & making sure cars were on the track where they were meant to be, we'd not be discussing this at all.

 

[dud]

My first thought here is that there is no excuse for cars getting airborne on their own underbody in the year 2018.

The aerodynamics knowledge is there, it is up to the race series rules to make front anti-lift safety mandatory so that designers don't have to trade speed for safety.

 

[dud]

As for the combination itself, I think it is particularly challenging but not particularly dangerous.

Cars sliding to the left could use a bit more runoff, but as people said in this thread, the cars smashing cleanly sideways injure drivers from bad car construction that should be fixed in the rules.

Personally I think that the relatively good injury record for such a challenging corner comes from the fact that going up the hill remove kinetic energy, and that the progression from downhill to uphill adds tremendous downforce that can be used for sharp deceleration when a drivers knows by then that they overcooked the combination.

Getting airborne on the crest is ridiculous. That's not a track problem, in 2018.

 

[NtsParadize]

If anything, they should change the white strips at the inside of Raidillon, that's what caused the flip at the WEC 6 hours.
But I'd be curious to know what Eau Rouge would be like if it was a bit tighter. AFAIK it used to be tighter in the past, and if it was just tight enough that it wasn't flat, even on F1 and LMP1 I think it would be more of a challenge. Even on GT3 it's easy flat in some cases as it is right now (On simulators, I don't think I've ever seen someone go flat there IRL).

The Mitjet can take it flat, the GT3 can take it flat IRL too

 

[Warlord_Gonagy]

Well, whenever I hear people saying, "Well, just lift off!", let me ask you this. Sure, they can all lift off, lose about half a second per lap or more, and the one person brave enough to stay flat is going to win, and he's going to keep his job. Whereas the people who lift off, and are slower as a result, are going to be under pressure to perform. We all know just how much lap time you can gain with a good run through Eau Rouge, and lifting off kinda ruins that run. The drivers aren't going to lift.

 

[bsmooth]

Safer barriers work, so I see no reason why they shoudn't be put in. As far as cutting the track, there nds to be something done to stop this, without some outside party getting involved.maybe some sort of a systems of curbs that gets worse considering how far offline you are.

 

[Xenozoid]

so what is next, we all do simulation, insurance racing goes up, and the more with monney we go and more we are going to pay more with our fav simulatore,because the do not know how to race anymore, without insurances,it will be added with drm addons on a later update......


racing?

 

[Matt88]

Great read and I have always thought myself about Paul ricard and how it is an ideal solution not just for eau rouge but for many circuits and corners.

However I am sure there is more to it. Since Paul Ricard was redeveloped numerous other circuits have been built, but none use the Paul Ricard solution.

Is there more to this and maybe a technical reason why it is not used?

Or is it that, as always simple and current solutions get overlooked because people are more interested in creating a new solution and being the 'hero'?

 

[Sky]

No. leave the track alone.

Give the cars flaps like nascar to help keep them on the ground or stop racing such fast cars there.

 

[delpinsky]

If you have a car thats "too fast" (don't really understand what that means, I guess we should never race in Monaco any longer) for a corner or a particular surface, you have the ability of braking, lifting and steering to adjust it, thats what skilled driving is all about isn't it?
Racing without danger wouldn't be racing, drivers have to calculate the risk, thats an essential part of racing. Too much safety could destroy the fascination of motorsports.

How about racing only with this Citroen 2CV at SPA, if someone feel the Eau Rouge is too dangerous?

More likely this 2CV won't be able to reach the Kemmel straight after the Eau Rouge

 

[paracletus]

It is the paradise, one of the greatest creations of civilisation.

 

[Matheus Machado]

If you have a car thats "too fast" (don't really understand what that means, I guess we should never race in Monaco any longer) for a corner or a particular surface, you have the ability of braking, lifting and steering to adjust it, thats what skilled driving is all about isn't it?
Racing without danger wouldn't be racing, drivers have to calculate the risk, thats an essential part of racing. Too much safety could destroy the fascination of motorsports.

It amazes me that people see joy on others getting hurt and losing absurd amounts of money during racing crashes. I wonder who is being too extreme here: the ones who go great lengths to improve safety or those who like to see drivers in danger.

Just remember most of the technological advancements that go into making road cars safer have their origins on racing purposes. That goes for runoffs and walls as well.
Or should we have the excitement of possibly getting hurt in our daily commute?

 

[Matheus Machado]

Nice article, I was starting to miss actually thought out articles on RD. (I know the ad revenue is important but that is just my opinion).

As far as Eau Rouge goes, nothing is too dangerous up until the drivers or a technical scrutineering deems otherwise. But, that doesn't mean improvements can't be made.

I think the ideal solution is to reduce the angle of the inside wall there to prevent the head on crashes, basically imcreasing the runoff at the top slightly. That can be done without major changes and just implementing a more thin alternative to tire walls. Abrasive tarmac won't help slowing down cars there to a point it isn't advantageous to extend limits imo, so while you get rid of depressuration issues, you basically make the anticut measure non existent.
A solution for me would be having indicators that bend down when a car hits it (like in le mans) and if a car hits more than a defined number in normal cornering conditions, a penalty (or warning) is issued. Basically putting a physical wall that still maintains the runoff.

 

[Dries Nys]

IMO, The problem is younger generations thinking racing should be a safe hobby like shopping for brand clothes and stuff. Also the reason why any current F1 driver wouldn't really make much of an impression on me if he would stand beside me. Not saying they aren't talented (and a financially gifted upbringing as background) but it's the days of real mechanical motorsport that i still admire. untill 30-odd years ago, every racer was prepared the give their live for their passion or at least well aware of the fact their lives could end any moment on track. So, no i don't think the danger isn't the problem. It's the fact it's not done with that kinda dedication & passion anymore. Which automatically generates issues like "over-protectionism" (if that's even a word)