[LM24 Race] McNish and Rockenfeller Accidents

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I said that McNish doesnt usually make mistakes ..... and Im right .

Threw away a race at Spa ..... outta how many wins and races ?

All drivers make mistakes ..... usually McNish doesnt do that .

I feel that Mcnish thought there was a slight mistake from the other Audi and went for it ..... didnt see the Ferrari cuz he couldnt see it , cuz of the height of the wheel arch , and the other Audi .

I believe its a height issue , furthermore to back up my concern , Acura/HPD P1 drivers did also complain of the view with respect to the height of the fwd wheel arch .

I think they should ban that straight away .

And dont try and tell me that the increased height of the fwd wheel arch doesnt obstruct sideways vision ..... because its logical ..... what else could that height increase do ?

Height of the wheel Arch? I get what your trying to say but the Ferrari is double the height of the Audi.....He saw the ferrari. And he hed the inside line but the ferrari couldn't see him as the audi is shorter than the mirror height.

Mcnish saw the ferrari. the ferrari didnt see Mcnish. And they collided. that seems like what happened.

But the ferrari had no business seeing the Audi because Mcnish should not have made the move. Not the ferrari's fault.

[chernaudi]

I do think that the McNish accident is a racing accident if you look at all the factors involved. Timo went off the road and Allan tried to over take him. Also, Allan tried to make a move that 9 times out of 10 normally sticks. Problem is, there's always the 10th time, and Allan rolled snake eyes on that one. Also, Beltoise was in a Ferrari--a mid-engined car with minimal rear visibility, and Anthony said that when and Allan got together, he didn't even see any R18s in his review mirrors until just before contact was initiated, basically maybe just fractions of a second.

Indeed, especially considering that it was 1 hour into a 24 hour race, Allan's move was definently ambitious, but not untenable under normal circumstances. Anthony seemed also to be trying to let the other Audi through possibly. Neither Allan or Anthony blamed each other for the accident, and if they agree that it was a racing accident, they were in the cars, we weren't, so lets leave it at that.

One thing that I think should be questioned a bit is the track layout there--is that "S" curve necessary for the LM24? I know that it was put there to increase runoff area and to allow a safer/smoother entry for the Moto GP bikes, but as JJ Lehto said in 2002, that took away an easy overtaking zone for LMP cars to get around slow traffic. Was that a factor, as many cars made move similar to Allan's during the race and over the past decade since the mod was made, and they made it work. Is it luck that they're haven't been more accidents there, or was the McNish/Beltoise deal an isolated accident?

As for the fencing issues, for that, I'd have to leave the liability for that one at the foot of the ACO--they should've known that cars could go off there, and that it could be big. I don't know what liability laws are in France for this stuff, but NASCAR for example has very limited liability for such things--just read the disclaimer on the ticket stubs that warn that racing is dangerous and unless gross negligence can be proven, the sanctioning body, teams, drivers, and track owner/race promoter can't be held liable for any injuries to fans and such. Of course, I'm referring to the incident where Carl Edwards got put into the fence at Talledega in '09 and some woman got a broken jaw from a chunk of Edwards' car. NASCAR and ISC probably payed her medical bills and such, but that was voluntary--the weren't required under law or court order too because of liability clauses.

As for Rocky, I don't see what else Mike could've done. He thought that the Ferrari would stick to the outside lane, but instead came down. Granted, if the Audi didn't catch that curb which pitched it into the barrier, we probably would just say that it was a close call and be done with it. His only options were to jam on the brakes--which likely wouldn't have worked--, drill the Ferrari and take both cars out of the race, or did what he did.

It was a gentleman driver mistake on the part of Rob Kauffman in my book, but he handled it like a gentleman (no pun intended), and although he didn't agree with the ACO's request that he sit out the race, he understood it. It seems that there was some miscomunication between what the ACO said and what the ACO intended with their instructions for that area of the track as far as drivers holding their line and when to move out of the way.

Rob's no absolute rookie, but he has very little experience with racing against LMP cars, and especially at a track like LM, which is fast and in places, extremely narrow. Hopefully, Rob will learn from this and become a stronger driver as a result.

I can say that an extreme solution is to ban all gentleman drivers, but is that really fair, let alone the fact that you'll effectively get rid of nearly half the GT field, and all of the LMP2 field? I do believe that the standards should be higher, like say the 107% rule, and that the drivers need to prove not only speed, but expeirence with more fields and disciplenes of racing. Where to draw that line, though, is hard for me to call.

I do think that it is dumb, though, of the ACO to slow straightline speeds of these cars, as the corners is where most accidents happen. If the ACO wanna be serious about slowing laptimes, make the teams use harder tires, restrict ground effects/aero, something to kill the cornering speeds. That seems to be the intuitive solution to me, as, after all, it's easier to pass down a straight than in a corner, where more risks must be taken to have a snowball's chance in hell for something like that to work, and makes for hero or zero scinerios to happen.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Jamesy-18

Were there ever any pictures of Rockenfeller's wreckage? Curious to see how well the safety cell etc stood up to one hell of an impact.

Hi-res: http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2875/wopv.jpg

[deggis]

More fuel for the "LMP vs. GT" fire: http://www.crash.net/le+mans/news/17...ng_change.html

[Purist]

I posted this in the race thread, but I suppose it is better-placed here.

While I'm thinking about it, I don't think the absolute lap times of the classes are an issue. I think the LMP1s could be just fine at 2008 sort of pace around the entire lap. The issue is how the speed is attained. The rulemakers keep slowing the cars down in a straight line (particuarly the prototypes). So, the LMP teams find pace in the other zones of the racetrack. The problem is, this cycle leads to faster corners coupled with slower straights. The LMPs have their greatest advantage on the GTs under acceleration and in braking, but those extremes in the speed range are being pinched, which narrows the potential window for lappery. Thus, to make the inter-class passes, the prototype drivers MUST take greater risks than previously was the case. And the end results can be seen in the form of these crashes, both here at Le Mans, as well as in the spate of incidents throughout the Spa weekend.

In short, let the LMPs go faster, down the straights, again!

(New Text)

Going back to Long Beach, it should NOT have been as difficult as it was for the Cytosport Lola-Aston Martin to outrun the RSR Jaguar XKR GT2 on Shoreline. Admittedly, the Jag has a strong lump under the hood, but I think it shows that there is NOT enough straight-line difference in speed between the current LMP1s and GT2s, much less current LMP2s and GT2s.

These points didn't necessarily play a significant role in the two Audi crashes, but it is, in general, something that is becoming a more prnounced problem overall.

As for the Rockenfeller crash, I'm still trying to tell at exactly which kink along that run to Indianapolis the wreck occurred at. There are a few of those kinks where you do NOT want to be in the outside lane; I just can't tell, so far, if the crash site was one of them.

[The Badger]

Rubbish ..... its the way it always has been done , so get on with it .

Its also unfair to expect a team to travel to Le mans for the first time , possibily from USA or Japan ..... and not have the time to properly set the car up .

I expect Davidson , wont get the backing from any team with that comment . I see his point ..... but its also unfair the other way too .

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Purist

As for the Rockenfeller crash, I'm still trying to tell at exactly which kink along that run to Indianapolis the wreck occurred at. There are a few of those kinks where you do NOT want to be in the outside lane; I just can't tell, so far, if the crash site was one of them.

The second one, at 2:19: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgkj-MK4Fbs

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by deggis

More fuel for the "LMP vs. GT" fire: http://www.crash.net/le+mans/news/17...ng_change.html

Well, I've read a lot of interesting, thoughtful and well-considered comments here in this thread on our forum. It surprises me little to have to go somewhere else for the nonsense.......

I'm not any expert on the technical stuff, everyone knows that, but I'm with Purist here. If you allow straight-line speed to be sacrificed on the altar of having to reduce terminal speeds, the top teams will find the time somewhere else - in the corners. Better to have LMPs scything through the slow traffic on the straights than feeling they have to take ever greater risks in the corners. I also agree (but then I would) that one of the perfect overtaking spots was forever lost when the ACO desecrated the run down to the Esses......

[Dead-Eye]

I don't like the idea of splitting qualifying completely, because you have to have time to run with all the cars in preparation for the race. I think someone on RLM suggested having only a certain amount of time (maybe half an hour) exclusively for LMP and GT respectively. That would be fair.

[Aysedasi]

What, just so they can set their 'ultimate' times? I just don't see the point. The race isn't split, so other than that, what purpose does it serve? We all know that qualifying is relatively pointless, other than the kudos of taking the pole.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by Purist

As for the Rockenfeller crash, I'm still trying to tell at exactly which kink along that run to Indianapolis the wreck occurred at. There are a few of those kinks where you do NOT want to be in the outside lane; I just can't tell, so far, if the crash site was one of them.

From what I understand it's the second kink. Some say it's not even a corner, maybe not for a prototype. It does have curbs though. My original point was that if you stay on the outside in a GT car (with very little DF compared to other tracks), you turn too sharply right on the apex and there's a brow that makes the rear go light and oversteer. If you don't catch it, you're off at 290+kph. And the last thing you need in that place is an Audi furiously flashing lights at you. That place is a bit scary even in a racing sim, I'm sure its worse in reality. Apparently everyone in this thread have so much experience at Le Mans to disparage the GT driver or even suggest he was asleep

[Dunlop Corner]

I do beleive that the top of that hump was shaved after the Mercedes accident. Of course i have never driven at Le Mans, but i really do not consider that kink to be tricky now. We see prototypes pass GT cars there all the time, and provided that the GT cars use their brain and not chop across the road there is no drama.

I would suggest that a driver not comfortable with staying on the left side in those kinks should not take part in the 24 Hours.

[AUSRSR]

In my eyes Rocky misjudged a closing gap. Simple as that. Had he backed off he would have taken the Ferrari into Mulsanne corner. To say Kaufmann turned into the Audi is ridiculous. He would've needed some seriously fast reactions to judge when to turn in to it at closing speed if he did. Not that this is a plausable reason for the accident..

[Aysedasi]

With the differing views, it's clearly something that everyone here is not going to agree on. Just shows how difficult it is to interpret these things.......

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

From what I understand it's the second kink. Some say it's not even a corner

The Mulsanne kink , is a corner . Its not an acute corner , but its a corner . Ive been down that part of the track , walking and driving ..... its a corner .

I dont know what other kink your talking about ? ..... cuz there is only one corner called the kink , and thats just before Mulsanne corner .

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Dunlop Corner

but i really do not consider that kink to be tricky now .

If the Mulsanne corner was considered difficult in a Group C car with ground effect ..... what is it now ?

granted its not so fast now .

[Mal]

There are two 'kinks' or slight curves on the run from mulsanne corner to indianapolis - it is these that are being referred to and it was the second of these at which the accident occurred.

[Aysedasi]

That's what I thought - I was beginning to think I'd misunderstood where the accident happened........

[Dead-Eye]

I was just skimming through the Club Arnage guide when this caught my eye:

During the night, just after 2 am, Gartner’s Porsche suddenly made a hard left turn on the Mulsanne straight after suffering a (suspected) jammed gearbox. The car hit the barriers at nearly 290 km/h, became airborne and rolled down the track until it came to a rest on the right side barrier and caught fire. Jo Gartner was killed instantly.

The image I had in my head while reading this was Rockenfeller's accident - sounds like despite being in different places and with different causes, it was almost an exact copy. Truly lucky to be having it today instead of 25 years ago.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

The image I had in my head while reading this was Rockenfeller's accident - sounds like despite being in different places and with different causes, it was almost an exact copy. Truly lucky to be having it today instead of 25 years ago.

Not really an exact copy, the major factor that contributed to Gartner's demise was the fact that the car vaulted over the barriers and hit a telegraph pole and some trees.

[RTH]

The age old problem at Le Mans of too much disparity in lap times between the front and back of the field ? ACO set their own rules.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

I was just skimming through the Club Arnage guide when this caught my eye:



The image I had in my head while reading this was Rockenfeller's accident - sounds like despite being in different places and with different causes, it was almost an exact copy. Truly lucky to be having it today instead of 25 years ago.

Sadly I remember it well, my first Le Mans. And I had watched Gartner's last win in an Interserie race at Thruxton only a month or two before.....

But I believe Victor is right - I was certain he went into the trees - which meant he had no chance. And there were no other cars involved - again IIRC.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

But I believe Victor is right - I was certain he went into the trees - which meant he had no chance. And there were no other cars involved - again IIRC.

The official review of the race shows a few shots of the wreckage... pretty grim stuff. And it's all scattered beyond the armco, and I do mean scattered; from the few shots of the debris that are in that video, the car must have completely disintegrated.

[Kpy]

Originally Posted by Mal

There are two 'kinks' or slight curves on the run from mulsanne corner to indianapolis - it is these that are being referred to and it was the second of these at which the accident occurred.

Indeed it was.
The accident occurred at coordinates 47.917461,0.22708
If you feed them into Google Maps you can zoom in and out of the map in satellite view and also use street view.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well, I've read a lot of interesting, thoughtful and well-considered comments here in this thread on our forum. It surprises me little to have to go somewhere else for the nonsense.......

I'm not any expert on the technical stuff, everyone knows that, but I'm with Purist here. If you allow straight-line speed to be sacrificed on the altar of having to reduce terminal speeds, the top teams will find the time somewhere else - in the corners. Better to have LMPs scything through the slow traffic on the straights than feeling they have to take ever greater risks in the corners. I also agree (but then I would) that one of the perfect overtaking spots was forever lost when the ACO desecrated the run down to the Esses......

This. Short and sweet, Ayse has the answer, right on the money, and something that I've brought up and thought about. Listen to Derek Bell's interview on Speed that he gave to his son Justin following the McNish accident. He said that at LM in his day, it was undeniably dangerous because of how crappy the cars were built by comparison to today's standards--Allan and Rocky would've been vaporized along with their cars if they were in a 917 in those accidents. But there were rarely accidents in traffic because they didn't have the Mulsanne Chicanes or the Porsche Curves or the Ford and Dunlop Chicanes, and the S curve from Dunlop to the Esses. And back then, the 917 LH could do 240mph down the Mulsanne, while the GT cars of that era could only do about 150, 160, 170mph usually for the slower GTs.

Now, your have all of those corners, plus the fact that LMP1s, LMP2s, LMPCs(if they raced at LM), and GTE Pro & Am cars all have similar terminal velocities. Only in braking and cornering do the LMPs have a significant speed advantage.

Am I advocating that they get rid of the Mulsanne Chicanes and Ford and Dunlop Chicanes or the Porsche Curves? It would be neat to see the cars go around the old pre 1968 LM circuit layout with the modern saftey improvments to circuits and cars, and that it surely would be a lot safer than back in that day, but no, I don't really advocate any of that.

I do advocate, though, more disparity in straightline speeds between the cars in different classes. After all, as Audi proved with the R10 in the ALMS, cornering speed is great when you can use it, but it's easier to pass down a straight than in a corner. And where do most racing accidents happen? In corners.