The reality is simple: motor racing is dangerous

“Motor racing is dangerous,” succinctly summed Niki Lauda on Sunday night after the Japanese Grand Prix.

“We get used to nothing happening and then suddenly we are all surprised. We always need to be aware that motor racing is very dangerous.”

Sunday in Suzuka was one of the days motorsport hopes never happens.

Jules Bianchi’s sudden loss of traction, snapping the car off the track at a speed in excess of 200 kilometres per hour, resulted in a terrifying collision with the heavy-duty recovery vehicle already deployed to retrieve the car of Adrian Sutil, who had left the track in an almost identical manner.

Bianchi remains in critical condition in Mie General Hospital, suffering from the effects of a diffused axonal injury – that is, the effects of rapid deceleration.

The FIA has launched an investigation into the matter, the findings of which are expected, at least in a preliminary sense, this weekend.

Safety, as has been the case with the governing body in the last 20 years, is its first priority. However the search for answers will not include many of the popular lines of inquiry currently circulating online.

Firstly, the marshal waving the green flag at the point of the accident was no incident of negligence; the regulations state simply that flag marshal is responsible for the sector of track ahead of them. The marshal in question, atop post 12, changed from double waved yellows to a single green flag once the recovery vehicle had moved Sutil’s car into the preceding sector.

Next, reports suggested that the helicopter was not used to take Bianchi to hospital because it was unable to fly in such conditions. In actuality Bianchi was transferred by road for medical reasons, his injuries deemed too risky for air travel.

Finally, the matter of the recovery vehicle itself: the practice of immediately recovering a stricken car is common in Formula One. Its presence on the course does not necessitate a safety car, only a caution zone. Double waved yellows were present in all forms – flags, lights, and cockpit warnings.

Such conspiratorial chatter, springing from the need to prescribe blame, only distracts from the perpetual conversation driving the search for enhanced safety. The key questions have nothing to do with which marshal waved what flag; they have everything to do with piecing together the key moments in the formation of what was a perfect storm of misfortune.

The first piece is the scheduling, which has long been questionable for the Japanese Grand Prix. A race can last for a maximum of four hours, but the GP at Suzuka is scheduled for 3pm, despite the sun setting at 5:30PM. Basic mathematics makes obvious that there simply isn’t enough time to allow for a complete race, particularly given its place in the calendar is in the midst of typhoon season.

Because of this, the sport whipped itself into unnecessary and distracting hysterics by creating a race for itself against the clock.

The next piece is the application of caution periods: the use of yellow and double yellow flags, and the safety car. Visit any karting track in the world and you’ll find drivers flouting caution flags. Yellow flags call for a driver slow, double yellows demand a driver prepare to stop, yet we generally see little difference in a driver’s behaviour under these conditions.

One proposition is to create a blanket rule dictating that any stopped car will trigger the safety car to allow for the stopped car’s retrieval. This would have enormous implications for the flow of a race, however, particularly with the introduction of standing safety car restarts next season.

A second option presents itself: electronic limiting in caution zones, policed in the same way as the pit lane speed limit. In other words, a regulation tweak could allow the FIA to provide a maximum speed under caution flags. Any driver who exceeds that maximum speed would be penalised. When there is no grey area, there can be no opportunity to push the limit in search of a competitive advantage.

The most blatant piece is the recovery vehicle, the future of which will be called into question – though not due to its efficiency. The time between Sutil’s and Bianchi’s crashes was approximately two minutes, meaning the stricken Sauber was recovered in the space of one lap. The context of its use, however, will undoubtedly be the subject of scrutiny, alongside the other contributing elements of the crash.

The sum of these circumstances proved greater than its parts with their freak coming together on Sunday. Such a serious outcome requires thorough examination, but in in the process we must remember that motorsport is a fundamentally risky undertaking. A long absence of serious injury does not preclude one from happening in the future.

This report will not conclude upon a silver bullet solution to prevent this accident from occurring again. The aim is not to cure risk, only to mitigate against it. It is difficult for a sport driven by the pursuit of perfection to grasp that it is unable to guarantee safety, but this is the unfortunate reality of Formula One. For once, the perfect must not be the enemy of the good.

While we await the FIA’s findings, we can only hope and pray for Jules Bianchi’s recovery.

#ForzaJules

You can find Michael being a nuisance on Twitter: @MichaelLamonato.

Michael presents the ABC’s national F1 programme Box of Neutrals. Hear the interview with former FIA medical delegate Dr Gary Hartstein this Sunday evening at 9PM AEDT on ABC Grandstand Digital.