Totally OT BBC PC rant.

Yiou have completely misunderstood.

That *was* the incident of note. Not the so called 'high speed crash as he hit the barriers at XXXmph'

The whole point of my post is the BBC never said 'was hit on the head by a piece of debris at 150mph. They said 'crashed into the barriers at high speed' as if that was the cause of the damage..

I.e. instead of reporting it as a one in a million chance, they twisted it into a Lesson In The Dangers of Speed For you Children Out There.,

Gosh Lyn. I didn't know. It wasn't you I was thinking of, either..

Politically correct, *biased* journalism.

I have followed motor racing for at least 25 years and although tyres have killed before, this is the first time I have ever seen a random piece of metal hit someone in a race or practice. The nearest was Senna, whose helmet was punctured by a bit of smashed car.

The beeb leapt on it to make a political point, not to report it for what it was, one of the most freakish accidents ever. And as I tried typo point out, FAR more common on our debris littered roads, than on a racetrack where a lot of care is taken to screw cars together properly.

Not caused by the *crash*, Dennis.

Because you are incapable of reading long words and understanding what they mean, Dennis..

What are you wiblbing on about noe?

Could he stop in the distance he could see, Deennis, with his eyes all closed?

Definitely ;-)

Who was it was killed at Silverstone when a hare ran in front?

No, they still use traps. They are very effective below 100mph or so.

Initial impact with the monoshock/spring would have been 200-400g. To do that sort of helmet damage. Final crash was probably less than 30g.

Easy enough to estimate from the footage.

And would have had the antistall kick in.

And also render it far more likely the driver will get trapped.

Exactly. This was so one off and freakish, it probably cannot be prevented.

No, my point is and was that the final crash was utterly irrelevant: the spring impact was the event, hiotting the tyre wall qwas a non event.

Me too. I noted that at the time.

Yes, the tyre marks were obviously ABS (I doubt if he had much control over his braking technique) and in a straight line. Probably just a reflex action to hit the brakes.

Wasn't gravel, but does show how the Beeb gets it wrong - there wouldn't have been braking marks if he'd been on the throttle.

They change the velocity of the vehicle - that is acceleration.

Yebbut, from the speed at impact, if the throttle had been fully open as reported... As it was, the brakes were full on.

I doubt if his head would have withstood a full-throttle impact, even if his body could.

Quite a few tracks have removed gravel and substituted tarmac, especially in high speed corners. I'd agree it isn't done in all corners though.

So why ask the stupid question?

If you want to separate out the car hitting the tyres from the start of the accident then that's up to you. I regard the entire incident as the crash. I suppose you separate the death of a climber falling from the fact he slipped too? "He didn't die because he fell, he died because he stopped too quick"

I also notice that you have now become a crash injuries expert. I suppose you have lots of experience with how a man with a fractured skull suffers injuries when he then hits a tyre wall.

You can't understand short words?

Its easy to prevent. Its doing it in an acceptable way that's hard.

Dunno Dennis. I thought you would be the best to answer that one..

And I said, I have followed motor racing for many years. There has been a lot of discussion about crashing and injury in that time. Much of it very well informed and technical.

Now what's your claim for expertise to criticise?

A lot more than you anyway.