The Mulsanne Chicanes

[BSchneiderFan]

OK, the great debate. Is the Mulsanne safer now than it was? As far as I can see, the argument is that cars no longer hit 250 mph or so, as they were doing on the pre-chicane Mulsanne. The counter-argument is that accelerating hard and braking hard three times instead of once is no safer than sustained high speed and places more strain on the car. (I also like Andy Wallace's argument that you could rest on the old Mulsanne, and stretch your left leg for a couple of minutes.)

So what's the balance of opinion? And could the Mulsanne be safelt straightened again? How fast would, say, a Pescarolo go along a chicaneless Mulsanne? And is running at, say, 250-260 mph significantly more dangerous than the 210 mph or whatever LMP1s are hitting now?

[Aysedasi]

Personally I still don't believe the chicanes were installed purely for safety reasons. The chicanes there with their gravel have probably been responsible for dozens of accidents since 1990.

[The Badger]

It was just political crap from balastre imo . He ruined the whole spectacle of the mulsanne . Hy not let the drivers decide about issues like that . After all its them that put their ass on the line !!!

[panoz.lmp1]

In the "battle" between FIA and ACO at the end of the 80s the FIA suddenly decided that no straight in international racing should be longer than 2km. So the Mulsanne straight was devided in three parts.

[Fab]

Henri Pescarolo was against the chicanes. When other pilots thought that the Hunaudières striaght was dangerous.

Decision was taken after the 1987 top speed (more than 400 kph). On the other hand, some cars still reached more than 360 kph after the chicanes.

Originally Posted by The Badger

It was just political crap from Balestre imo . He ruined the whole spectacle of the mulsanne.

My opinion too.

Originally Posted by panoz.lmp1

In the "battle" between FIA and ACO at the end of the 80s the FIA suddenly decided that no straight in international racing should be longer than 2km. So the Mulsanne straight was devided in three parts.

Yep.

[Raglanparade]

Its the same reason the Caltex Chase was added to Bathurst.

In order for it to hold a round of the WTCC in 1987, the circuit had to comply with the FIA track guidelines. As a result, Conrod Straight was shortened from 2 miles (3.2 Kms) to just over a mile (1.92kms).

There are many circuits worldwide that also came to this fate.

[Aysedasi]

I remember James Weaver's very apt description..... "Those poxy chicanes". Others (like Evan Clements) vowed never to drive at Le Mans again......

[The Badger]

Andy Wallace used to use the mulsanne to rest his right foot & left foot accelerate ..... he hates the chicanes too !!!

I think drivers should be consulted in matters like this . It would be respectful to ask them for their opinion and not have these issues forced upon them . But when did the Fia ever give a **** about what drivers think !!!

[brielga]

It is difficult to see how safety has been improved when many accidents still happen in the braking area before the chicanes. Maybe some of that stuff happens at a lower speed but things like the Mercedes flight happened after the chicanes....

[lj79]

Originally Posted by jasonhill9884

Its the same reason the Caltex Chase was added to Bathurst.

In order for it to hold a round of the WTCC in 1987, the circuit had to comply with the FIA track guidelines. As a result, Conrod Straight was shortened from 2 miles (3.2 Kms) to just over a mile (1.92kms).

There are many circuits worldwide that also came to this fate.

Yes, but in 86 Mike Burgman lost his life and Peter Williamson was lucky to escape with his - this probably had something to do with it.

Perhaps big run off areas either side of Conrod would have helped, as opposed to the chase. Nevertheless it is awaesome viewing watching the cars go through the right kink that leads to the tight left

[TheNewBob]

Originally Posted by brielga

It is difficult to see how safety has been improved when many accidents still happen in the braking area before the chicanes. Maybe some of that stuff happens at a lower speed but things like the Mercedes flight happened after the chicanes....

Does make you wonder how much lower Mark Webber and Peter Dumbreck's chances of survival would have been in '99 if they were doing 250mph instead...

[jna]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

Does make you wonder how much lower Mark Webber and Peter Dumbreck's chances of survival would have been in '99 if they were doing 250mph instead...

I think that the felling of the area of trees before the race in the spot where he hit the ground played a very important part in Mr Dumbreck's safe landing. I'll shall never forget watching the incident live on the pit straight big screen.

John Neilsen was considered to be doing 225mph in 1985 in the Sauber C8 when he flipped at the Hunaudieres hump. Not a great deal of difference to today's top speeds. I'm no expert, but clearly the build quality of the car and a hell of a lot of luck play their parts in a driver's survival. Speed is not always the decisive factor.

We should all be thankful that these drivers lived to tell their tales.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

Does make you wonder how much lower Mark Webber and Peter Dumbreck's chances of survival would have been in '99 if they were doing 250mph instead...

Yeah ..... they probably would have landed at frankfurt Airport !!!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by TheNewBob

Does make you wonder how much lower Mark Webber and Peter Dumbreck's chances of survival would have been in '99 if they were doing 250mph instead...

Just to talk numbers: Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared. So 250mph is 40% more energy than 210mph.

The two extra braking points do add a little danger. Consider the historic cars. When they race at Silverstone these cars use the faster Club and faster Abbey so they don't have to brake as much! Saving the machinery as it wasn't designed to slow down. A tad off topic, but interesting.

If I had the choice I'd get rid of the chicanes. It was unique to Le Mans, the Mulsanne curve would be more of a challenge and the cars would come back after less time to where I am normally am!

Danger. In some ways it would be improved, in others decreased (although lets remember the humps have been reduced). However I think the danger would be within acceptable limits.

[Aysedasi]

In my early visits to Le Mans there were massive accidents on the Mulsanne. Jo Gartner lost his life there in 86. It was the installation of triple layer armco that probably saved Win Percy's life when his Jaguar flew the following year. In 1990, Jonathan Palmer had a similar acvident in a Joest Porsche when something broke - which I think was probably an element in all three of these accidents (Gartner's being gearbox related and (I assume) Percy's relating to a tyre deflation). And yet I've heard much more from drivers about how they preferred the circuit before the advent of the chicanes (and indeed, additions like the Dunlop Chicane as well). There have always been drivers like Schlesser who professed to hate the place, but generally came back all the same. Personally, I remain to be convinced that the installation of the chicanes was safety motivated and that Badger is right. Balestre and Ecclestone were desperate at the time to force the ACO to toe the line and refusal to comply with FISA mandate would have meant the loss of the world championship round status for Le Mans. A shame the ACO couldn't have read in their crystal balls that Balestre and Ecclestone would shortly destroy that as well.....

[Adam43]

I am very sympathetic to that theory. One small thing though - IIRC Le Mans wasn't part of the WSC in 1990?

[lj79]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

In my early visits to Le Mans there were massive accidents on the Mulsanne. Jo Gartner lost his life there in 86. It was the installation of triple layer armco that probably saved Win Percy's life when his Jaguar flew the following year. In 1990, Jonathan Palmer had a similar acvident in a Joest Porsche when something broke - which I think was probably an element in all three of these accidents (Gartner's being gearbox related and (I assume) Percy's relating to a tyre deflation). And yet I've heard much more from drivers about how they preferred the circuit before the advent of the chicanes (and indeed, additions like the Dunlop Chicane as well). There have always been drivers like Schlesser who professed to hate the place, but generally came back all the same. Personally, I remain to be convinced that the installation of the chicanes was safety motivated and that Badger is right. Balestre and Ecclestone were desperate at the time to force the ACO to toe the line and refusal to comply with FISA mandate would have meant the loss of the world championship round status for Le Mans. A shame the ACO couldn't have read in their crystal balls that Balestre and Ecclestone would shortly destroy that as well.....

Palmer crashed between the chicanes in 90.

Gartner was accelerating just after the right kink after the conifers that leads on to Mulsanne proper.

On the Mulsanne proper Andruet had a big shunt in 85 in a WM as did Dudley Wood in the JFR 956, both nr the kink. Andruet unhurt, Wood broken leg

Sheldon and Olsen had "that" shunt in 84. Sheldon burnt, Olsen ok. (A marshall was killed by debris)

Plus the Nielsen flip and the other close ones, Percy 87, Schlesser 86, Niedwiedz 88. One of the Joest cars had a massive blow out too in 89.

So - deaths on Mulsanne "proper" in modern(ish) era = 0. Even Lafosse's death in 81 was at the start of the straight too.

BTW - this is not to make light of the Gartner / Lafosse / marsall death (Jacky Loiseau IIRC) but provides stats to back you up Ayse

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by lj79

BTW - this is not to make light of the Gartner / Lafosse / marsall death (Jacky Loiseau IIRC) but provides stats to back you up Ayse

Thanks for that. And although I take Adam's point, I think the issue between the FISA anmd the ACO over the chicanes rumbled on long before they were finally installed for 1990.

[Fab]

In an old annual (1990 ?), ACO demonstrated that the serious wreckages weren't due to the Hunaudières speed. Most of them, as lj79 underlines above, occured in other places.

Much too late now. And Let's just hope they won't butchered the place more. Dunlop curve and Dunlop way down to Tertre Rouge suffered much more for us in the attendance. At least, we don't have any access to the chicanes...

[The Badger]

I thought Gartner died because of a marshall crossing the road . He tried to avoid the marshall and hit the barrier , took off into a telegraph pole and was instantly killed when his neck broke !!! Sad

[Aysedasi]

True enough. At least until a few years ago you could go to the restaurants and peer over the fences. Here's a picture of four of our Tourists standing outside the front of the Restaurant des 24 Heures in 1994.

http://www.aysedasi.co.uk/gallery/19...restaurant.jpg

They won't even let you do that anymore.....

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I thought Gartner died because of a marshall crossing the road . He tried to avoid the marshall and hit the barrier , took off into a telegraph pole and was instantly killed when his neck broke !!! Sad

That's the first I've heard of that one. The theory I heard was that he lost almost all of his gearbox oil and his leaving the track was almost certainly due to the seizure of the unit. The telegraph pole is definitely true though.

[Aysedasi]

I had a quick look in Ken Wells' book of the 1986 race before I left for work and he surmises that the oil at the Porsche Curves which took out Jochen Mass and Mike Wilds (although I think Wilds got the Ecosse back, IIRC) was Gartner's - dumped on the lap prior to his accident. I guess the suggestion that his accident was caused by a gearbox seizure leads on from this.....

....and (although I didn't check this), I don't recall Lars Viggo's account mentioning anything about a marshal in the road. (Viggo was the poor soul driving the URD immediately behind Gartner when he went off. I don't think Viggo ever drove again..... )

[jna]

I haven't had the opportunity to look this morning but I think the 'rumour' of somebody on the track was mentioned in the very first reports of the race, including Autosport, and before the wreckage could be fully scrutinised.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by jna

I haven't had the opportunity to look this morning but I think the 'rumour' of somebody on the track was mentioned in the very first reports of the race, including Autosport, and before the wreckage could be fully scrutinised.

Its just something that I remember hearing over the years . I would hate to be that marshall if its true ..... living with that torment !!!