[LM24 Race] McNish and Rockenfeller Accidents

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

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.

And we have to remember Jo Bonnier's fatal accident, that happened in the same corner where Rocky's happened, which involved a slower GT car (a Ferrari Daytona) and involved Jo's Lola being valuted over the barrier and into the trees. With no carbon monocoque, no BHF, and the car getting airborne and into the trees, Jo had no chance.

If anyone has seen Speed Merchants and heard Vic Elford talk about the accident, you'll know it was a bad one. And that was in 1972, interestingly enough in parallel with some of the discussion here, was when rules encouraged/forced prototype teams to switch to smaller engines to slow the cars and reduce cost/increase efficency. The events of nearly 40 years ago came close to repeating themselves, especially without the strides in safety made since then, or 1986 for that matter.

[chernaudi]

And an update on why Kauffman was requested by the ACO to stand down for the remainder of the race--it seems that Rocky wasn't the first driver to have a close call with Kauffman, as Crash.net reports that Kauffman had been warned by officials several time to be more mindful of apporaching LMPs. I think that the deal with Mike was the last straw, and asked him to sit out the rest of the race.

[chernaudi]

To be specific, the article states that Kauffman ignored blue lights/flags that were warning him that he was being lapped and to be careful. I know that the blue flags are supposed to be advisory, but when you're that far off the pace, does one think that they should be heeded?

Link to the article:

http://www.crash.net/le+mans/news/17...hem_react.html

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Nse_v05cY#t=0m38s

[deggis]

Q&A with Waltrip...

Q. You picked a hell of an event to be involved in. It will probably go down in history as one of the greatest, and scariest, Le Mans. What's your feeling on what you have seen?

MW: Well just the speed is what I will remember the most. Let's break it down... they're running 300-and-something km/h on a two-lane country road through a town. Add all that s**t up and something is probably going to go wrong at some point.

The straight from Mulsanne to Indianapolis is not straight – it's got two pretty good kinks in it and when you are running 270km/h in a Ferrari you need some room. You've got to straighten those kinks out. We saw a couple of incidents, one early with [Allan] McNish and one unfortunately with Rocky [Mike Rockenfeller] and our car. But you know, it's racing, you're going to wreck and you are going to break a transmission every now and then. It's all part of it.

Eh, since English is not my native language... in this context does he really mean straightening the kinks or just getting through them?

Anyway, I'm afraid of knee-jerk reactions by ACO.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by deggis

Q&A with Waltrip...

Eh, since English is not my native language... in this context does he really mean straightening the kinks or just getting through them?

Anyway, I'm afraid of knee-jerk reactions by ACO.

Difficult to say - he's American, they use the language very differently...

[isynge]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And we have to remember Jo Bonnier's fatal accident, that happened in the same corner where Rocky's happened, which involved a slower GT car (a Ferrari Daytona) and involved Jo's Lola being valuted over the barrier and into the trees. With no carbon monocoque, no BHF, and the car getting airborne and into the trees, Jo had no chance.

If anyone has seen Speed Merchants and heard Vic Elford talk about the accident, you'll know it was a bad one. And that was in 1972, interestingly enough in parallel with some of the discussion here, was when rules encouraged/forced prototype teams to switch to smaller engines to slow the cars and reduce cost/increase efficency. The events of nearly 40 years ago came close to repeating themselves, especially without the strides in safety made since then, or 1986 for that matter.

Think the Speed Merchants / Bonnier reference resonates a lot - it could be 1972 this year except Ferrari showed up [I'll leave it open for debate, perhaps elsewhere, as to where where Audi/Peugeot circa 2012 appear vis-a-vis Ferrari/Alfa/Matra] - and that Bonnier's crash was uncannily like Rockenfeller's.

I can see the argument for straightline differential speeds, especially around a track like Le Mans, but let's cast a countervailing view.

For most of us the only bits of Le Mans we see are twisty sections - and having it so that there's an imperative to try and pass in places like the chapelle esses improves the show and rewards the throngs you get there on Saturday/Sunday. I'd prefer this level of engagement to a series of LMPs sitting going through the motions in the 'technical' bits of the track, knowing full well they could blast past come a bit of straight track.

Surely there's a sensible compromise somewhere out there?

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

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.

lol. Were not trying to watch nascar.(yeah i know your not saying that)

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by deggis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Nse_v05cY#t=0m38s

That clip is from the 1986 Duke video. I recognised the voice-over immediately.

[Simmi]

Originally Posted by deggis

Q&A with Waltrip...

Eh, since English is not my native language... in this context does he really mean straightening the kinks or just getting through them?

Anyway, I'm afraid of knee-jerk reactions by ACO.

I think he just means taking the most direct route through the two kinks because of the speed. Hence being on the racing line.

[Kpy]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And we have to remember Jo Bonnier's fatal accident, that happened in the same corner where Rocky's happened, which involved a slower GT car (a Ferrari Daytona) and involved Jo's Lola being valuted over the barrier and into the trees.

But the accident this year was not at the same corner.
Bonnier's accident was at the corner with no name before Indianapolis - around
coordinates 47.920775,0.220646. Rocky's at 47.91747,0.227049, which can't be described as a corner.

[lemansfan]

http://www.lemans.maville.com/actu/g...leriePhoto.Htm

Mc Nish accident in 22 Photos .

[PascaLM]

The first neutralisation had lasted from 15h51 to 17h03 (72 minutes) ;
the one following the Rockenfeller's accident had lasted from 22h41 to 01h05 (2 hours and 24 minutes).
180 metres of armco were changed during the whole race.
Source : AUTOhebdo.

[Aysedasi]

That's a lot of armco!

[Andy77]

I'd still like to see a video of the Rockenfeller accident from that one race control cam that showed pictures of the aftermath in the eurosport coverage

[PascaLM]

Originally Posted by Andy77

I'd still like to see a video of the Rockenfeller accident from that one race control cam that showed pictures of the aftermath in the eurosport coverage

The full sequence
The accident

[Andy77]

Originally Posted by PascaLM

The full sequence
The accident

Thanks Pascal. This is how I remembered the coverage.
In "The Full Sequence" there is the race control cam, the one that zooms in and out. That sort of night sight glas. Thats what I mean, the full sequence from this particular cam would be interesting to me as it seemed to be the only cam that "looked" from behind

[littleman]

The word accident is derived from the Latin verb accidere, signifying "fall upon, befall, happen, chance." In its most commonly accepted meaning, or in its ordinary or popular sense, the word may be defined as meaning: some sudden and unexpected event taking place without expectation, upon the instant, rather than something that continues, progresses or develops; something happening by chance; something unforeseen, unexpected, unusual, extraordinary, or phenomenal, taking place not according to the usual course of things or events, out of the range of ordinary calculations; that which exists or occurs abnormally, or an uncommon occurrence. The word may be employed as denoting a calamity, casualty, catastrophe, disaster, an undesirable or unfortunate happening; any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence; any unpleasant or unfortunate occurrence that causes injury, loss, suffering, or death; some untoward occurrence aside from the usual course of events. An event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and unexpected event.

I think McNish and Rocky had one of these!

[Aysedasi]

Good explanation! I'm with you!

[deggis]

[Tim the Grey]

Darth Vader without the face mask...

Nope, I STILL cannot tell what those silver tubes do!

[Steve Tarrant]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

That's a lot of armco!

I drove past the scene on the Monday after the race, and while they say 180 metres, it was actually 60 metres of 3 layers of armco, equal to 180 metres.

What struck home was not only was the armco replaced, there is a debris fence behind it, and the mesh between the posts was all pushed back at full stretch!!!! Behind it is the same trees that Peter Dumbreck luckily missed when he had his flying moment.

[chernaudi]

McNish in his own words on his LM accident:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...cnish-le-mans/

It seems he didn't expect the Ferrari to turn down on the racing line, and as Beltiose admitted, he didn't see the second Audi coming, he only saw Bernhard. In short, Allan didn't see Anthony start to turn in, and Anthony didn't see Allan. That lack of a visual on both parts caused a racing accident. And that's what this was--a racing accident. Granted, under normal circumstances, Allan probably would've backed off, but read what precipiated Allan into making the pass attempt.

Allan said that Timo went off the track to avoid a slower GT car that Allan go by cleanly. Of course, Timo had all kinds of crap and clag all over his tires. As demonstrated by Beltoise and McNish, that S-curve before the Esses can be hairy enough when a fast prototype is overtaking a slow GT car, but I definently wouldn't be racing side by side with a prototype there, especially a teammate who due to tire pickup, that could've been in a compormised position.

Should Allan have probably stayed behind Timo? Hindsight being 20/20, the answer is probably yes, but that's easy for us to say that now. And the other Audis and LMPs made successful passes in that area of the track all week prior to the race, and afterwards. Allan and Anthony just had the misfortune of both being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and both seemed to be in each other's blind spots. Seasoned pros like them don't just have a collision like that without a good reason.

I think that one thing that we may be missing in all of this is that some of the things that make these cars so safe also can be a hazard sometimes. The HANS device is probably the one biggest safety innovation in the past decade or so that's saved countless drivers from dying or being crippled because of head or neck injuries. No discussion can put that fact out to pasture. But the HANS does limit side to side head movement, and, above all else, rotation.

And we have to look at the other head and neck protection systems built into these cars, The R18's head rests look like something that NASCAR teams use, and the GT cars' probably use something similar. So periferal vision isn't gonna be good to begin with, and the Ferrari, with it's low roof and being mid-engine, is gonna have a huge rear/rear quarter blind spot out of it's internal mirror, which the wing only can make worse.

And the closed LMPs share the same issues, be it the Audi R18, Peugeot 908, or the various closed Lolas. The ACO mandate the thick A-pillars to be crash stuctures in a roll over, the teams build the smallest cockpits possible to suit the rules (width equal to an open cockpit), and even with the open cockpit, I'm surprised that those cars with the cockpit shrouding have much in the way of periferal vision.

But we have to go back to what Ayse said earlier, which backs up comments that JJ Lehto--someone who knows something about racing and winning at Le Mans--made in 2002, that the S-curve put in for the Moto GP bikes took away a good overtaking area, and we have to ask if it was necessary for the LMP and GT cars to use it at LM as well.

[boesel]

Here you can find some photos about Mcnish car after accident
http://www.connectingrod.it/LeMansSe...h/24h_eng.html

[Pilgrimage]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

McNish in his own words on his LM accident:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...cnish-le-mans/

It seems he didn't expect the Ferrari to turn down on the racing line, and as Beltiose admitted, he didn't see the second Audi coming, he only saw Bernhard. In short, Allan didn't see Anthony start to turn in, and Anthony didn't see Allan. That lack of a visual on both parts caused a racing accident. And that's what this was--a racing accident. Granted, under normal circumstances, Allan probably would've backed off, but read what precipiated Allan into making the pass attempt.

Allan said that Timo went off the track to avoid a slower GT car that Allan go by cleanly. Of course, Timo had all kinds of crap and clag all over his tires. As demonstrated by Beltoise and McNish, that S-curve before the Esses can be hairy enough when a fast prototype is overtaking a slow GT car, but I definently wouldn't be racing side by side with a prototype there, especially a teammate who due to tire pickup, that could've been in a compormised position.

Should Allan have probably stayed behind Timo? Hindsight being 20/20, the answer is probably yes, but that's easy for us to say that now. And the other Audis and LMPs made successful passes in that area of the track all week prior to the race, and afterwards. Allan and Anthony just had the misfortune of both being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and both seemed to be in each other's blind spots. Seasoned pros like them don't just have a collision like that without a good reason.

I think that one thing that we may be missing in all of this is that some of the things that make these cars so safe also can be a hazard sometimes. The HANS device is probably the one biggest safety innovation in the past decade or so that's saved countless drivers from dying or being crippled because of head or neck injuries. No discussion can put that fact out to pasture. But the HANS does limit side to side head movement, and, above all else, rotation.

And we have to look at the other head and neck protection systems built into these cars, The R18's head rests look like something that NASCAR teams use, and the GT cars' probably use something similar. So periferal vision isn't gonna be good to begin with, and the Ferrari, with it's low roof and being mid-engine, is gonna have a huge rear/rear quarter blind spot out of it's internal mirror, which the wing only can make worse.

And the closed LMPs share the same issues, be it the Audi R18, Peugeot 908, or the various closed Lolas. The ACO mandate the thick A-pillars to be crash stuctures in a roll over, the teams build the smallest cockpits possible to suit the rules (width equal to an open cockpit), and even with the open cockpit, I'm surprised that those cars with the cockpit shrouding have much in the way of periferal vision.

But we have to go back to what Ayse said earlier, which backs up comments that JJ Lehto--someone who knows something about racing and winning at Le Mans--made in 2002, that the S-curve put in for the Moto GP bikes took away a good overtaking area, and we have to ask if it was necessary for the LMP and GT cars to use it at LM as well.

All good points - well made.
I agree.