F1technical.net

Jonathan Palmer

Palmer today confirmed that the fatal injury occurred in the collision with the wheel and that the impact at the following corner did not contribute to his death.

Formula One-style wheel tethers, designed to reduce the risk of tyres coming loose in an accident, are mandatory in the series, but Palmer admitted the system was not 100% effective.

"The Williams F1-designed Formula Two cars comply with the FIA 2005 F1 safety standards including the fitment of wheel tethers to reduce the risk of wheels coming off in accidents," Palmer continued.

"The F2 car also includes the latest F1 standards of driver head protection with high cockpit sides and lateral deformable structures.

"As with F1, however, wheel tethers cannot provide an absolute guarantee that a wheel will not come off in an accident and in a single seater race car the front of the head is inevitably exposed to the risk, however small, of being hit by another car or component."

This really puts the emphasis on better run offs and barriers that would prevent components like wheels from coming back on the track by reducing impact energy of the car in the first place. One could also look into making helmets even stronger.

WhiteBlue wrote: I do not know how good the safety standards are at Brands Hatch

Pretty good mate. Terrible news.

Scuderia_Russ wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote: I do not know how good the safety standards are at Brands Hatch

Pretty good mate. Terrible news.

That is not very specific. I was getting the impression that run offs were rather small and barriers of lower safety standards.

Ciro Pabon told us it is only a class 2 circuit.

Ciro Pabón wrote:I would say FOTA will adhere to current circuit safety standards and regulations. This is the list of Class 1 Formula One circuits, that is, tracks able to run F1 races, as of 2006 (sorry, this list has no newly certified tracks, like Valencia), :

• Albert Park
  Bahrain
  Bahrain-Paddock Circuit
  Catalunya
  Dubai Full Circuit
  Fuji Speedway
  Fuji Speedway - Short Layout
  Hockenheim Grand Prix
  Hungaroring
  Imola
  Indianapolis Grand Prix
  Interlagos
  Istanbul
  Jerez
  Magny-Cours
  Monaco
  Montreal Gilles Villeneuve
  Monza
  Mugello
  Nürburgring Grand Prix
  Sepang
  Shanghai International
  Silverstone Grand Prix
  Spa-Francorchamps
  Suzuka

As explained, A1 ring "recovery" was stopped by environmental reasons.

Just in case, the list of Class 2 circuits is the following one. They could be updated or recertified in some cases, but I'd say they have to hurry up: the circuit built in the shortest time in history (if I'm not mistaken) was Hungaroring, and it took 8 months to build it. Of course, this tracks don't have to be built from the ground, but...

• Albacete
  Assen National Circuit
  Autopolis
  Bilbao
  Brands Hatch - Indy
  Brands Hatch Grand Prix
  Brno
  Catalunya Short Circuit
  Denver
  Dijon-Prenois
  Donington Park
  Durban
  Eastern Creek
  Edmonton Finning International Speedway
  Eurospeedway Lausitz Dtm - Strecke
  Eurospeedway Lausitz Oval
  Fundidora Park - Monterrey
  Gold Coast Indy - Surfers Paradise
  Hockenheim Special
  Jarama
  Laguna Seca Monterey Mazda Raceway
  Le Mans 24 Heures
  Le Mans Bugatti
  Lime Rock
  Mexico City - Hermanos Rodriguez
  Miller Motor Sports Park
  Mine Circuit
  Mosport
  Most
  Norisring
  Okayama
  Oschersleben Motorsport Arena
  Pau Ville
  Portland
  Qatar - Losail
  San José
  Sears Point
  Sebring
  Sentul
  Shanghai International Track 3
  Sugo
  Tokachi
  Tokachi - Short Layout
  Toronto Indy
  Twin Ring Motegi Grand Prix
  Twin Ring Motegi Oval
  Umbria-Magione
  Zhuhai
  Zolder

I don't think it's got much to do with the circuit, we all saw it very recently in the Kubica-Vettel incident at Melbourne. I guess all that can be done is improve the tethering mechanism and helmet structure.

alelanza wrote:I don't think it's got much to do with the circuit....

I wonder how you can make such a statement. Did you watch the video? Clark never hit a gravel bed or better an asphalt run off going sideways. That would have slowed him down. He skidded over a hard grass surface which had no breaking ability. He then impacted with his car about 10 m from from the track into a barrier of secondary safety standard (no TecPro). The car, the rear wing and the wheel were then bounced back on the track again over a hard and fairly slippery surface. If there had been a run off of 30 m and a gravel bed nothing would have happened. The impact of Clarke's car with the barrier would have been harmless and no debris had ever had a chance to go back on track. The wheel may not even have been separated from the car due to the much lower impact energy.

WhiteBlue wrote:

alelanza wrote:I don't think it's got much to do with the circuit....

I wonder how you can make such a statement.

Do you watch F1? if yes, then you have seen a good amount of wheels coming off on all kinds of circuits, right? I mentioned an example btw

WhiteBlue wrote:Did you watch the video? Clark never hit a gravel bed or better an asphalt run off going sideways. That would have slowed him down.

How many Km/h do you reckon he would have needed to slow down enough for the wheel not to come off?

WhiteBlue wrote:If there had been a run off of 30 m and a gravel bed nothing would have happened.

How did you reach your 30 m figure?

WhiteBlue wrote:The wheel may not even have been separated from the car due to the much lower impact energy.

How much lower impact energy would have been required for the wheel to stay in place? Did it snap in tension or was it cut off?
I couldn't tell from the video.

Have a look at this. Lots of flying wheels at category 1 super mega safe Grand Prix circuits. In many cases wheels fly without any walls involved, in some cases wheels even come off and break loose on their own (Rubens, Hungary 2003).

I do not deny that it could happen on an F1 circuit as well. I just say that the chances are much reduced because track safety measures are superior. Why do you think all that money is spend on class one circuits?????

Until someone refutes the points I have brought up I will not even entertain questions that do not address the main issue:


Bigger run offs as in class one circuits would have prevented debris to come back on track.

Gravel beds or tarmac run offs would have greatly reduced the motion energy of Clarke's car.

Reduced motion energy would have reduced the chance of wheel tethers even coming off.

Greater distance of the barrier from the track would have reduced the chance of debris going back on track.

A higher quality barrier (TecPro) would have reduced the chance of the barrier deflecting the wheel back on track.


One can make all kinds of arguments. I stay convinced that state of the art track safety would have greatly reduced the chance of a freak collision between wheel and driver helmet.

WhiteBlue wrote:
Until someone refutes the points I have brought up I will not even entertain questions that do not address the main issue

You haven't brought up any points. You've stated what you think would be necessary, with no particular reasoning behind it, thus my questions. If you don't feel like answering them that's fine, it's what i had expected as you have very little data about the accident beyond having seen a video.
You don't know at what speed that tyre came back into the track, you don't know how it came loose, you don't know how much energy the barrier absorbed.
In a freak accident like that one, slowing the car down, having bigger run offs, barriers that absorb more energy, might have meant the tyre would have simply hit someone else that was behind Mr. Surtees. In fact, all other things constant, imagine that run off would have been 1m shorter, then the tyre would have just missed him. Or maybe not, you just don't know.

WhiteBlue wrote:Bigger run offs as in class one circuits would have prevented debris to come back on track.

Yet evidence seen by anyone who watches F1 says the opposite, a tyre can travel very far, it may be well behavedor not as this unfortunate accident proved. Chk the video from Modbaran,

WhiteBlue wrote:I stay convinced that state of the art track safety would have greatly reduced the chance of a freak collision between wheel and driver helmet.

My great grandma remained convinced turtle shells could fall from the skies in her later years and she took that to her grave, but that didn't mean it could actually happen...

WhiteBlue wrote:Jonathan Palmer

Palmer today confirmed that the fatal injury occurred in the collision with the wheel and that the impact at the following corner did not contribute to his death.

Formula One-style wheel tethers, designed to reduce the risk of tyres coming loose in an accident, are mandatory in the series, but Palmer admitted the system was not 100% effective.

"The Williams F1-designed Formula Two cars comply with the FIA 2005 F1 safety standards including the fitment of wheel tethers to reduce the risk of wheels coming off in accidents," Palmer continued.

"The F2 car also includes the latest F1 standards of driver head protection with high cockpit sides and lateral deformable structures.

"As with F1, however, wheel tethers cannot provide an absolute guarantee that a wheel will not come off in an accident and in a single seater race car the front of the head is inevitably exposed to the risk, however small, of being hit by another car or component."

This really puts the emphasis on better run offs and barriers that would prevent components like wheels from coming back on the track by reducing impact energy of the car in the first place. One could also look into making helmets even stronger.

alelanza wrote:I don't think it's got much to do with the circuit, we all saw it very recently in the Kubica-Vettel incident at Melbourne. I guess all that can be done is improve the tethering mechanism and helmet structure.

I don't think any changes to the helmet would have made much difference. His helmet was undamaged from what I could see, I think it was the impact on his neck that did the damage...

You wanted cheap racing?
You've got it.
I hate Max.

alelanza wrote:..You don't know at what speed that tyre came back into the track, you don't know how it came loose, you don't know how much energy the barrier absorbed.
In a freak accident like that one, slowing the car down, having bigger run offs, barriers that absorb more energy, might have meant the tyre would have simply hit someone else that was behind Mr. Surtees. In fact, all other things constant, imagine that run off would have been 1m shorter, then the tyre would have just missed him. Or maybe not, you just don't know...

You do not listen! It is a fact that better track safety could have prevented the debris of Clarke's accident from getting back on track. That is what run offs and gravel beds are designed to do. But when they are not present where needed they cannot do the job. There is no secret to good safety design. Compare Istanbul and Brands Hatch and you will easily see the difference. A well designed run off at that point of the track would have prevented the wheel coming off the car in the first place. The speeds and trajectories are known and all it takes is spending the money on the necessary measures.

alelanza wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:Bigger run offs as in class one circuits would have prevented debris to come back on track.

Yet evidence seen by anyone who watches F1 says the opposite, a tyre can travel very far, it may be well behavedor not as this unfortunate accident proved. Chk the video from Modbaran,

What is your point? Other accidents have other circumstances. What do they have to do with my statement of fact of this particular tragedy. This accident could have been avoided. You cannot deny it.

alelanza wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:I stay convinced that state of the art track safety would have greatly reduced the chance of a freak collision between wheel and driver helmet.

My great grandma remained convinced turtle shells could fall from the skies in her later years and she took that to her grave, but that didn't mean it could actually happen...

What a rude and condescending way of discussing a serious issue. The young Surtees died and all I'm doing here is discussing ways of preventing such tragic loss of life.

timbo wrote:You wanted cheap racing?
You've got it.
I hate Max.

What has Mr. Mosley to do with that? The cars are as safe as F1 cars.

If someone is to blame it is Ecclestone who sucks the money out of the race organizers so that they have no money to invest in their tracks for safety and facilities. But even he hasn't been involved in Brands Hatch racing for many years. So blaming a person is not justified AFAIK.

I see where you are coming from WhiteBlue but the fact of the matter is that a wheel struck the driver on the head.

The Brands track cannot have larger run off due to the protection of the local forests/trees. The circuit won the right to host F1 again in the late 90's but was not able to develop the track and so it went to Silverstone.

Regardless of the track it was a loose wheel that is the problem. We tried to regulate and try to tether the wheels to the chassis but in this instance we had a failure. It could have happened on any track where a wheel came off..not just Brands.

WhiteBlue wrote:Bigger run offs as in class one circuits would have prevented debris to come back on track.
..........
Greater distance of the barrier from the track would have reduced the chance of debris going back on track.

One can make all kinds of arguments. I stay convinced that state of the art track safety would have greatly reduced the chance of a freak collision between wheel and driver helmet.

Rephrasing the same won't make it sound more convincing. Yes bigger run-offs could help. However what about these 'state of the art' category 1 tracks:

Albert Park
Monaco
Montreal Gilles Villeneuve
Indianapolis Grand Prix
Valencia Street Circuit
Singapore

Plus there's a possibility to lose the wheel crashing into the pitwall at any track.