rec.autos.simulators

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

Mark Seer

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Mark Seer » Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:00:00

. My point was that Schumachers accident wasn't what

Really?

Any broken leg can be a life threatening condition.

Howzabout you read up on what happened to Ronnie Peterson and how he was
sitting up in bed joking with nurses after his Monza accident in 1979. A few
hours later he was dead as a result of an embolism caused by marrowbone
tissue getting into the ***stream

Mark

Steve Ferguso

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Steve Ferguso » Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:00:00

: Which part of "My point was that Schumachers accident wasn't what I'd
: call serious as there was no real threat to his life if we look at it
: now" was hard for you to understand. Schumacher was not killed nor was he
: in danger of dying and I'm not talking what could have happened or what
: we feared but what we *know* happened with retrospective sight.

And your point was made in the context of a discussion about which tracks
were safe and which were not, to bring this back to the original topic.
And so the facts are that Schumacher went straight off at silverstone and
impacted a tire wall and concrete wall at 100mph.  The impact ripped the
nose off his car and broke his leg.  The follow up data, which we can now
view with retrospective sight, indicates that it was a hell of an impact
and could theoretically have killed him.  The logical conclusion, and the
point of this whole thread in the first place, is that this corner is
"unsafe" and some changes should be made (sloping gravel traps? asphalt?
Stay-Puff marshmallows?).  If there is some sincerity to the moes to make
cars and circuits safer, then this accident is just as important a data
point as Wendlinger's accident, Senna's, Ratzenberger's, Ronnie
Peterson's and Berger's.  You analyze them all and make improvements.

But I of course agree with your point about the relative "tragedy" of the
events.  In one case a driver is dead, and in the other case not.

Stephen

Meij

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Meij » Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Are you a moron... read my post again. Is Schumacher dead? Go on... tell
me... is he? No. So why persist in saying what could have happened. His
accident was not life threatening. I was as worried as anyone else when
the accident happened and rumours of complications started but once it
was announced that it was a break and not life threatening that was it.

M



Meij

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Meij » Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Finally someone who sees my point... I apologies for labouring the point
but people did insist on what could have happened over what did.

M

Jo Helsen (EDP

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Jo Helsen (EDP » Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:00:00




>: Which part of "My point was that Schumachers accident wasn't what I'd
>: call serious as there was no real threat to his life if we look at it
>: now" was hard for you to understand. Schumacher was not killed nor was he
>: in danger of dying and I'm not talking what could have happened or what
>: we feared but what we *know* happened with retrospective sight.

>And your point was made in the context of a discussion about which tracks
>were safe and which were not, to bring this back to the original topic.
>And so the facts are that Schumacher went straight off at silverstone and
>impacted a tire wall and concrete wall at 100mph.  The impact ripped the
>nose off his car and broke his leg.  The follow up data, which we can now
>view with retrospective sight, indicates that it was a hell of an impact
>and could theoretically have killed him.  The logical conclusion, and the
>point of this whole thread in the first place, is that this corner is
>"unsafe" and some changes should be made (sloping gravel traps? asphalt?
>Stay-Puff marshmallows?).

If you determine the "danger" of corners based on this particular
incident, then I don't think one single corner in F1 survives the
test... How many corners end up safe when you loose all rear brakes?
Only straights are safe in those circumstances! Or else the spectators
have to be placed at such a distance that they would prefer to watch
the race at home <G>.

Is F1 that much safer than before that Black Day at Imola in 94?
Actions have been taken, but we've seen some more horrible accidents
in the mean time. Yes, most of the drivers got away with it over the
last few years. But so they did from 1985(De Angelis?)-1994. I even
have the impression that there are far _more_ accidents right now.

In my opinion, the more recent changes won't make a difference. Things
are about as safe as they can reasonably be. To make them even
"safer", the whole F1-experience would suffer, and as we would say in
my country "we would throw away the child with the bathwater" :-).

JoH

========================================
Jo Helsen    EDP Operations BF Belgium

========================================

don hodgdo

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by don hodgdo » Fri, 17 Sep 1999 04:00:00

OK...here is the story from an acquaintence who was there. I've left his
name off, it's not important. I will warn you, it ain't pretty.

"I am the photographer in the blue sweatshirt that you can see in the
video replay running down the hill away from the accident. I was in the
area because I was heading down to the red-zone on the inside of 8a to
kick the photographers out of that area. I was waiting for a lull in the
action before I entered that area so I decided to shoot some pictures of
the cars dropping down into the corkscrew. As soon as I saw Gonzalo's
car not follow the correct racing line, I started to run because I knew
parts were going to fly.
   I watched the whole accident unfold and everything seemed to go in slow
motion. The impact was so large that the concrete barrier was cracked in
half and pushed back about a foot. The car slowly pole-vaulted over the
signage with Gonzalo's head area hitting the supporting horizontal 1X6
that holds up the top of the banner. The board was broken but still
together when I looked at it later. The car came down just on the other
side of the barrier on its rear wing and then plunged down the 20ft drop
to land upside down. It did not look like his head hit the dirt at this
time.
   There were 5 photographers below the accident and two of them ran up to
get photos of the driver getting out of the car because it did not look
badly damaged. As you can see in the video, I also started to take
photos from where I was standing. I then yelled at the photographers to
get away from the car, I thought it might burst into flame. Upon seeing
the driver closer we knew immediately that Gonzalo was dead and every
photographer put their cameras away. All said that they would not
publish any of their photos of the accident. No film was confiscated at
the track.
   I hope I didn't offend anyone and I tried not to be too graphic but I
have to get my story out. I'm hoping the truth will help me heal...this
is going to take a long time to get through and the memory will be with
me forever."

Motorsports is dangerous, always has been, always will be. Yes, there are
measures which can be taken to protect the drivers and, more importantly,
the spectators, but we will NEVER totally eliminate the danger. If you want
an antiseptic, boring, safe sport, take up badminton.

Gonzalo was a brilliant, young talent who was poised to take on the world.
We honor his memory by carrying on in the same way that he would, with all
the desire, passion and focus needed to attain the highest levels of the
sport.

don

[|]-(_)-[|]

Mike Wes

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Mike Wes » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

I know I'm a bit late with this, but Eurosport did show it in SportsCentre
(their newsflash program) the day it happened, then (apparently, I didn't
see it the 2nd time) in the build up to the race.
According to autosport.com, he went off at 140mph, and they think his foot
may have slipped off the brake and on to the throttle when his right front
wheel hit a kerb.
It would have been a spectacular addition to all those motorsport out-take
programs, had the outcome not been so tragic.

Mike West


> No replays have been shon in England.
> Infact it hasn't even made the news at all! Not even on teletext.

> S'pose we'll never see the accident because I doubt Eurosport would show
it
> when they show the race tonight.



> > With all due respect to the departed; did you see the reply of the
crash?
> > Wow!!  It looked a lot like Schumacher's crash, but this car flipped
over
> > the barrier and landed on it's top down the hill.

Mark Seer

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Mark Seer » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

No I'm not a moron
No he is not dead!
Why get so ***y agressive?

 >No. So why persist in saying what could have happened.

Persist? I only see one previous post in this thread by myself  and I cannot
recall saying anything on the subject of what could have happened. I was
simply drawing your attention to a medical fact.

I quote an earlier post my your good self....

I was merely pointing out that any injury involving a broken leg IS
potentially life threatening! Just a simple statement of fact. Now who is
the moron in the eyes of the masses  I wonder?
Not that I am calling you one of course <G>

Mk

Zonk

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Zonk » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00


>I was merely pointing out that any injury involving a broken leg IS
>potentially life threatening! Just a simple statement of fact. Now who is
>the moron in the eyes of the masses  I wonder?
>Not that I am calling you one of course <G>

>Mk

Rest assured, it's you.

Z.

Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

Wolfgang Preis

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Wolfgang Preis » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00


>God, do we have to resurrect this yet again?  Ayrton was killed NOT by an
>absence of impact dissipation material, but by a part of a suspension arm
>penetrating his visor and then his head.  How might tires have lessened the
>chance of a (somewhat fragile) suspension piece flying around?

Yet, I wonder - there are so many ingenious engineers in motor sport,
but the people who design the safety features of the tracks seem to be
amateurs. Somebody in this thread said that you can't foresee all
kinds of accidents and take provisions against them - true. Senna's
crash is one example. But I think it should be pretty easy to foresee
possible trajectories which damaged, or out-of-control cars can take.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a car that is not controllable anymore
will almost always keep going in a straight line until it is stopped,
right? And there are known parts of a track where the cars will be
very fast (f.i. at the end of long straights), and other parts where
they will be much slower (f.i. mid- to end of a tight corner).

What is maybe even more important is the angle in which a damaged car
will most likely travel in relation to the safety barriers.

Now, all a designer has to do is to calculate the most likely
trajectories and ask himself: "What do we need at this place - a
run-off zone with tire barriers at the end or a *nearby* concrete wall
which runs more or less parallel to the car's trajectory?" Both
measures, in the right places, would lessen the severity of the
impact.

I sometimes get pretty angry when I see accidents like Panis' in
Canada a few years ago, where a concrete wall without tires would have
spared his legs. OTOH, the Laguna Seca cork***is a tight corner at
the end of a very fast section. Why isn't there a run-off zone? O.k.,
so one would need to build a concrete ramp to provide one? Then make
it so! Or think about alternative restraints: how about the nets that
are used on aircraft carriers to catch planes which cannot use the
hook? If it can stand an F 15, it surely can stand a champ car.

I could go on forever just citing examples from this year. What about
the accident by da Matto (sp?) a few weeks ago: what the heck was the
hole in the barrier doing at this place? Just where a car will go when
the driver loses it accelerating from the corner?

Racing is dangerous and will always be. Vehicles moving at more than
300 km/h in an environment with solid obstacles will never be
completely safe, unless we develop UFO-like force field technology. ;)
But I don't think that everything is being done to make racing safer,
even with today's technology.

Sorry for ranting. :)

ObRAS: Despite Rodriguez' death, I watched and enjoyed (moderately -
this week's F1 race was more exciting, for a change) the Laguna Seca
race. More than ever, I feel we need a competent new CART sim,
preferably by Papyrus and using the GPL game engine. I had to fire up
ICR2 again to drive a bit on this track - I can live with the
graphics, the model of the track is still excellent, but the physics
are definitely outdated by now.

--
Wolfgang Preiss   \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.


Neil Rain

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Neil Rain » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00


> OK...here is the story from an acquaintence who was there. I've left his
> name off, it's not important. I will warn you, it ain't pretty.

> [SNIPPED]

> Motorsports is dangerous, always has been, always will be. Yes, there are
> measures which can be taken to protect the drivers and, more importantly,
> the spectators, but we will NEVER totally eliminate the danger. If you want
> an antiseptic, boring, safe sport, take up badminton.

Funny thing is, motorsports can often appear boring if you don't
understand the risks involved: a lot of cars trundling around one after
another.  Experienced viewers know that that can change in a
split-second, of course.

Now this is getting way off-topic of course, but:

Badminton is far from boring - certainly not at the top level!  The
players are incredibly fit, and the action is fast and explosive.

Just another example of how promotion and TV coverage is all-important
in sport (badminton doesn't get any, except in Indonesia and China where
it is huge).

Now don't get me started on how squash gets even less coverage (except
in Pakistan and Egypt) - did you know there have been riots following
matches involving Ahmed Barrada?

Not confined to motor racing and soccer, then!

Meij

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Meij » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00



Well if we're going to get into this deeply, just about every injury can
have complications that are life threatening if you combine enough
circumstances. However, the vast majority of broken legs don't result in
anything more than a trip to the hospital for a cast.

As Zonk has also posted... that, Mark, is still you sadly.

M

Steve Ferguso

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Steve Ferguso » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00



:>>I'm not talking about the effect of the damage on an "athlete" just
:>>that a broken leg isn't a serious accident in the terms of danger to
:>>life

: Well if we're going to get into this deeply, just about every injury can
: have complications that are life threatening if you combine enough
: circumstances. However, the vast majority of broken legs don't result in
: anything more than a trip to the hospital for a cast.

</trivial knowledge mode switched on>

Actually, the *vast* majority of broken legs are not treated
conservatively (that is, with a simple plaster cast).  The trend in
orthopaedic practice now is to use some form of hardware (metal plate,
intramedullary nail like Schumy's, screws etc.) to better control the bone
fragments and to promote better healing.

</trivial knowledge off>

Stephen

Meij

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Meij » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00




>Actually, the *vast* majority of broken legs are not treated
>conservatively (that is, with a simple plaster cast).  The trend in
>orthopaedic practice now is to use some form of hardware (metal plate,
>intramedullary nail like Schumy's, screws etc.) to better control the bone
>fragments and to promote better healing.

Well you'll excuse me but it's some time since I actually had a friend who
smashed a leg up and the last one who did was somewhat more seriously
damaged. Point taken but my point is still valid... the majority are hardly
life threatening :)

M

Remco Moe

OT: Gonzalo Rodriguez

by Remco Moe » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00




>>>I'm not talking about the effect of the damage on an "athlete" just
>>>that a broken leg isn't a serious accident in the terms of danger to
>>>life

>Well if we're going to get into this deeply, just about every injury can
>have complications that are life threatening if you combine enough
>circumstances. However, the vast majority of broken legs don't result in
>anything more than a trip to the hospital for a cast.

>>I was merely pointing out that any injury involving a broken leg IS
>>potentially life threatening! Just a simple statement of fact. Now who
>>is the moron in the eyes of the masses  I wonder?
>>Not that I am calling you one of course <G>

>As Zonk has also posted... that, Mark, is still you sadly.

Nah Meij, you're the moron, honest.....

Remco


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.