Sunday proved what we all know – or should know – that safety measures in motor racing can only ever do so much. There will always be circumstances beyond the control of the those who seek to make motor racing totally safe.
I have watched Henry Surtees’s accident several times and I fail to see much that could have been done differently. Yes, perhaps in a perfect world the tyre barrier that Jack Clarke hit might have been further away from the track. It was already a good distance and Clarke’s crash was a relatively minor impact given the speed and angle at which he hit. With wheel tethers the wheel that tore off and bounced (relatively slowly) back to the track and hit Surtees ought not to have come loose, but wheel tethers are a double-edged sword. The impacts involved are sometimes of a magnitude that simply snap the cable. Strengthen the tethers and they rip the corner out of the monocoque and destroy the car. Balancing safety and cost always sounds heartless after an accident but it is something that must be done to keep the sport healthy. Besides, Formula 2 has F1 safety standards in most respects. OK, Brands Hatch is not an F1 standard facility, but then again the F2 cars are not nearly as fast as F1 cars and, in fact, are only marginally faster than F3s, so such an accident could have occurred in any formula from F3 upwards.
There will be investigations and perhaps things will be found that might be improved, but my feeling is that this was one of those accidents which would have happened come what may.
It is a stark reminder of what we all know, but forget sometimes, that motor racing is dangerous – and it always will be. As long as people push the limits, there will be an unlucky few who will pay the price, unpalatable though that basic truth may be.
joeblogsf1 
My prayers are with his family
As are mine, f1mikey.
On the article: I fully agree with the point that motorracing is dangerous. And that what makes it stand out among other sport-like activities. To quote E.M. Hemingway: “There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games”.
has a mother my heart go’s out to the parents it must be the hardest thing they have ever had to face in their lives, you will always remember him and love him and in time your loss my come less painful to bear xx
It was very unsual accident, which reminded my of that from Markus Hoettinger in 1980 in Hockenheim. He was also a F2 pilot and lost his live, because of the same reason.
I don’t know if it is true, but I heard, that the manufacturer of the wheel tethers also supplies to the F1 and the IRL. But IRL changed the rules (2008?) and uses tethers with much more strenght.
Again, I don’t know if this is true, but I if the IRL changed the thickness of the cord, we have to ask, why the F1/F2 did not do so either. I don’t want to play the “blaming game” but it occurs to my, that IRL cars doesn’t lose their wheels that often, and the velocity of the impacts are much greater, compared to the F2.
Hi Joe,
Spoke to a friend who’s an F2 engineer earlier. He said that although the wheel tethers are the same or similar to F1, the aluminium uprights to which they are attached are much weaker than F1 uprights, and that probably part of the upright broke away from the tether and flew off with the wheel. It’s only his guess, but he knows the cars inside out. Henry’s rear wheel broke off too – in his frontal impact. The fact that the wheel hit him is still a pure freak anyway – 1m either way and he’d have been fine – and that equates to about 2-3 hundreths of a second.
My friend said that both cars have been impounded for an investigation.
The other thing that looks a bit dodgy is that big tree which forces the barrier to face the track somewhat instead of running parallel.
It’s very sad anyway – we know motorsport is dangerous, but he did absolutely nothing wrong and was just in exactly the wrong place and exactly the wrong time.
I always feel slightly guilty about loving this sport when this sort of thing happens.
Maybe now some people will realize the anchronism of having these high-sidewalled tyres instead of low-profile ones with larger rim diameters. If I’m not mistaken it means more unsprung mass, more mass hitting someone if a wheel comes off, more bounce, suspension characteristics far less controllable than leaving the fine-tuning of the suspension setup to sophisticated sets of springs and dampers … for what?
I think the cars behaved as well as anyone has any reason to expect them. The wheel seemed to take th bulk of the impact so it is no surprise it came off. I have long argued for proper head protection in single seaters. It seems crazy to me that so much effort went into moving drivers’ feet out of danger while leaving their heads exposed.
To me the only thing that should be looked at in this particular accident is the angle of the wall Clarke hit. The only reason I could see for it angling back towards the track is that there is a tree there. I hope that is not the reason.
We really need to have walls parallel or angling away from the track.
A terrible shame.
It a starling reminder that motor racing is a dangerous sport. Just like Imola so many years ago.
We’ve been lucky for 15 years and counting in Formula One. The fact that racers are rarely injured and killed in a accident now is a testament to the safety of the motorsports now. However, it makes every tragedy like this that much more shocking and devastating.
If anything, I hope this will redouble the efforts of everyone in F2 and F1 to ensure that tragedies like these become rarer and rarer.
My thoughts and heart are with the Surtree family.
How awful that this young man should be taken in such an unfair and unusual manner.
Made a mistake, this post should be here
Sorry
Such situations should not be happen
Wheels should not fly
In 2004, links had to withstand 70 kN and absorb energy 900J (70 kN is red as a novelty, I do not know how many before), and in 2000 was around the question of the change from 50 to 100 kN, but the information from the news, not from rules.
Click to access 612539919__F1_Tech_Reg_a.pdf
no information
Click to access 1603301296__2006_f1_technical_regulations.pdf
Do you have more information about this topic ?
Sorry for my english
There have been at least two prior incidents during the previous three races where a rear wheel has broken loose. Given that, it seems clear that either the design or manufacture of the rear wheel tethers/connections is inadequate.
@soeren – I think the anachronism here is open-wheel racing. Until the fans and powers-that-be get over their nostalgia, there will always be this unnecessary additional danger in F1.
I’m very sorry to read this sad news. Unfortunately this is also part of autosport and something I’m aware and affraid of. The crash of Heikki Kovalainen in Barcelona last year could have been fatal as well, the tyre-wall could have killed him. Altough such accidents only happen rarely, one should try to improve safety constantly. Considering a metal roll-bar to protect the drivers head is something I recommend.
Firstly, the incident is just so, so sad as is any death sustained in this sport and thought must go out to the Surtees family.
Steven, it is interesting that you mention head protection – is is possible that open cockpit cars should become a thing of the past?
Should a rollcage – much like a midget or sprintcar roll cage be investigated to surround the driver’s head?
It’s been something inconceivable to me for some time that a great deal of money is spent on safety but the head is still quite vulnerable.
This accident, along with a Formula Ford accident in Australia that left a driver quadriplegic last year when the rollhoop dug into the sandtrap have to beg the question about driver head protection.
Marc,
My theory has always been that something similar to a top fuel dragster cage over the driver’s head could be used in single-seaters.
Aside from the safety implications it would also do a wonderful job of screwing up the airflow and anything that does that is fine by me.
It is absolutely insane that so much effort in the 80s was put into making a driver’s feet safer yet the head is left exposed 20 years later. If you look at cars from the early 80s you will see that the driver sits much further forward than now and a rule was brought in that meant the driver’s feet had to be behind the centre line of the front wheels.
It also seems insane that cars have to be built to survive huge loads in certai areas and can’t race without passing those tests but we are happy for drivers to race when they can be killed after being hit by a wheel.
There is far too much belief that certain things are sacrosanct and are part of the sport. It is the same atgument Jackie Stewart faced 40 years ago.
The fact is had Surtees’s car had head protection he would be alive. If we did not have exposed wheels he would still be alive. Yet there is almost know discussion of those two factors and instead people expect tethers to have magical properties.
Even in F1 I have advocated a return to metal suspension parts (A-arms). They can be made more aero friendly but heavier than carbon parts. As recently as 2006 Renault had their lower A-arms made of Ti when they had that innovative system that combined both the R&L components into one single part that flexed rather than hinged.
The wheels fly off because the sharp carbon cuts the kevlar tethers. With metal parts instead there would be no need for the tethers at all. And there would be less shards of debris to cut tires when cars go through an accident scene. Ralf’s Indy (turn 13) shunt was the result of a puncture from a shards picked up when he went through debris from (Fisi’s Renault?) that crashed in turn 1. The puncture occurred later as only turn 13 put enough stress on the compromised tire to make it blow. Punctures from carbon shards are common in F1, Ralf’s was just one of the more dangerous and noteworthy.