UNDER THE HOOD
HOW GROSJEAN SURVIVED MAY STAY A MYSTERY
Pat Symonds on why crash inquiries matter
The 2020 Formula 1 season will be remembered for many things. The relentless schedule of 17 race events completed in 165 days will certainly not be forgotten by those who participated, and the intense midfield battles occupied the minds of the majority of teams.
For fans, the return to some classic tracks, plus the introduction of new ones, will be remembered. But if one were to choose a single event that will be talked about for some time to come, it would undoubtably be the fiery accident suffered by Romain Grosjean in Bahrain.
Accidents are part of motorsport. Any workplace can be dangerous, but motorsport must rank alongside military combat as one of the most dangerous occupations. In spite of this, and as illustrated in Bahrain, thankfully the injury rate is low. This is due to a constant focus on safety from both the teams and the FIA.
Accident investigation is a scientific task and must be approached with a forensic eye. In most cases, particularly when considering aviation or road traffic accidents, the primary focus is on establishing the cause of the accident. Understanding the cause is the primary mitigation against repetition. In Grosjean’s case, the cause was obvious. Video clearly showed the driver’s error, which caused the loss of control.
Sometimes it is not so obvious, and even today the cause of the accident that led to the death of Ayrton Senna at Imola in 1994 is not known with certainty. The balance of probability in that case determined the chassis bottoming out due to low tyre pressures after a Safety Car was the precursor to the impact.
The lengths that investigators must go to are immense. When Jules Bianchi died after an accident in Japan in 2014, a 396-page report was written – even though in this case the cause of the accident was known with some certainty. The report focused on circumstances surrounding the accident and what mitigation might be put in place to provide better future outcomes. Without doubt this accelerated work that had been ongoing for some time regarding frontal protection for the driver’s head and led to the introduction of the Halo, which may well have saved Grosjean’s life several years later. It is a bold statement to say that all the circumstances leading up to the outcome of an accident are known.
It is very rare that a single event is sufficient to predict the aftermath of an accident, or even a car component failure. Usually, other theories are employed, such as the ‘chain of events theory’ or the ‘branched chain of events theory’. The science behind these is not new, but the thinking was rapidly advanced and disseminated after the space shuttle Challenger suffered catastrophic failure on launch in 1986.
In the case of Grosjean’s accident, while the cause may be known, the outcome was partially determined by a linear chain of events, including impact with another car, impact with the barrier, and structural failure of certain parts. But other factors were equally important. The branched chain of events may inquire as to the placement and construction of barriers, design specifics of the car, or even the role of the
first responders to the accident.
Whatever approach is taken it needs to have forensic exactitude. In Formula 1 we are lucky to have extensive video coverage from both inside and outside the car, so while witness statements – particularly from the driver – are valuable, the cognitive bias witnesses often display is mitigated. Additionally, there is a plethora of data, including the accelerometers built into each driver’s earpieces, dedicated to accident investigation.
Such evidence is only useful if it’s collected and analysed in a rigorous manner. Some years ago, I wrote a detailed procedure for my team of how events – be they a component failure leading to a potential race retirement, or a serious accident – were investigated. It relies on collecting and inspecting data and components and ensuring the evidence is not disturbed before all details are recorded. Of course, in the Bahrain case this was difficult as a race had to be restarted, but numerous photographs were taken to establish the state of objects before they were moved.
Even with such exhaustive investigation it can still be difficult to establish the exact sequence of events. Various channels of data are recorded at different frequencies, and electronic filtering can introduce delays such that at the most granular level the sequence of events can be misrepresented unless the full characteristics of the data acquisition system are understood.
In order to reach a sound conclusion, all facets of the incident must be studied, and as propounded in the Sherlock Holmes stories, it is sometimes the case that elimination of potential causes is as important in determining the origin of an outcome as establishing the ultimate reason directly.
That said, the FIA has world-leading expertise in these matters and, combined with an immense desire to push safety forward rather than to apportion blame, enormous strides have been made in the safety of the cars and the infrastructure involved in race meetings since that fateful day in May 1994 when Senna died.
Motorsport will never be completely safe, but neither will our everyday lives. That memorable moment in Bahrain should be recognised as a tribute to what has been achieved so far, but more importantly act as a spur to continue the quest for zero deaths or serious injuries in motorsport.
IN FORMULA 1 WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE EXTENSIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CAR