On Friday in Sepang, Romain Grosjean’s Haas hit a drain grille while running in the first free practice session. The grille was not properly secured (as it should have been) and it tore through Grosjean’s right rear tyre, sending him off the track and into the barriers at high speed. The car was extensively damaged. Normally racing teams are responsible for repairing any damage to the cars caused in any accident. Teams cannot claim against one another, but in this case it was rather more complicated than that. The circuit might be deemed to be responsible for the accident and thus would have to pay for the damage, although circuits and sanctioning bodies purchase specialized insurances to protect their interests.
But who is to blame for a badly-fixed grille? Is it the circuit, or is it the sanctioning body that cleared the circuit to be used? For F1 circuits the tracks are inspected by FIA officials prior to each event, to make sure that all is well. If the inspectors miss a bad weld, is it their fault? The FIA regulations relating to circuits recommend that the national sporting authority should make regular inspections of all facilities, as proper maintenance is a condition of the circuit’s licence. There is even a specific mention of drains in the FIA rules, which says that “drains should be cleaned, and inspected by the ASN for correct operation prior to major competitions”. But does that relate to the grilles or just to the drainage? And should the Malaysian national sporting authority pay, or should it be the circuit?
Clearly Haas does not feel it should be pay for the damage, which was estimated at about $750,000 and the team has raised the question of compensation.
“In my opinion, things like this in 2017 shouldn’t happen on a permanent circuit, they shouldn’t happen on any circuit,” team boss Gunther Steiner said. “This is, in my opinion, not acceptable. This is not up to the standards.”
No doubt the lawyers will sort it all out in the end…
joeblogsf1 
I thought this when I saw the accident. Haas are the last ones who should pay. Don’t people sue their council when they damage their car on a pot hole. Same should apply. Isn’t the fiat all about safety!
*FIA
Personally, it seems that Haas has a good case. It is clear that the cover should not have been knocked loose. I wonder if the inspection was done before or after the red and white painting. I suspect it would be easier to miss if painted. To me, fault lies with the track and the FIA…
LOL. It’s an American team, meaning, here in America people often blame and sue others for their malheure. While 750 large isn’t pocket change, oh, c’mon, the driver is alive and well, raced the very race, will race the next one, all’s well in paradise. Somebody should remind Haas and Gunther the old adage about ending up with a cool million bucks in Formula 1.
I wondered if his gearbox needed to be changed following the shunt (there was much speculation that it would need to be, and it was implied by Channel 4 saying the next day that he’d had everything changed except the chassis and the floor)? If so, presumably he was given dispensation against a five-place grid drop… but I’ve not been able to discover the answer to either of those questions.
Are you sure about the floor not being replaced? There was a huge piece missing on the shot I saw.
Whoops, I have no idea why my fingers typed that, because that’s now what I meant. They said he’d had everything replaced “except the chassis and the engine”. Hope that now makes more sense.
Grrr, “not”, not “now”.
$750k. Wow that really says what’s wrong with current F1 costs. Yes the car was badly damaged, but I’d love to see the damage itemised. How much for the floor for the floor, suspension, etc.
I imagine that most of the Haas parts come cheap via back door of the Marenello factory!
As I’ve observed before, the FIA safety culture and most organisations beneath it ie ASN is totally archaic and not fit for purpose. This demonstrated not just by this incident, but by the strange justification for technical safety decisions, and even their own lack of confidence in the event incident Stewards Panel.
Many industries have developed their own safety management systems which has changed the culture from the Board Room down to the shop floor, particularly in Major Hazard industries; those capable of multiple fatality accidents on and off site.
Such systems are also enshrined in international (ISO) standards and national/international legislation.
There is no sign that FIA is hearing rather than avoiding or ignoring the REAL safety issues.
Their own Safety Institute which is meant to drive safety in competition (and the road) Board only has Crash Test Engineers and Head Trauma Doctors. That just emphasises a preconceived safety culture.
Taking this particular incident which I’d expect as a possibility at a street circuit, not a permanent course, I can think of several solutions. First however, a proper investigation should have been made by the FIA to check the management system in place. Was there a critical equipment register in place with a hazard register. Did that have an appropriate matrix of control measures, with an appropriate monitoring/auditing system to assure integrity.
Of course that might not be appropriate, but illustrates the culture of Identification, Assessment, Control, rather than identify someone who made a mistake (because of inadequate controls) blame and punish them.
Or just saying its just one of those things!!!
Love your lines of thought….Trouble is, far to much sense there. You need to dumb it down 🙂
pdfbt40 This is somewhat ironic considering the amount of time and FIA funds spent by Todt in preaching road safety, while his own organisation is responsible for track safety.
If the FIA were the track inspectors and safety signatories, then they are responsible. If they subcontracted the inspection then the subcontractor is responsible to the FIA.
It seems odd that while the very existence of the sport relies upon unpaid volunteers, in this particular case FIA people are paid experts.
It also appears incongurous that while F1 is positively swathed in regulations, that the track could not be part of an established documented system of failsafe checks.
Maybe I expect too much, coming from an industry governed by BS/EN/ISO QS9001/2/3 and TS16949 where the whole structure of the company is aligned to comply with quality regulations. (Not to mention each customer’s individual additions to the ISO standard, followed by their own inspections on a regular basis)
Full traceablitiy is the utimate concern, from any component ideally back to the materials batches it was made from alsmost to the miner who shovelled the ore out of the ground, on what day and which shovel he used! (And was the shovel made by an ISO/QS9000 registered company? )
Yes, it is ironic. More-so because the preaching on road safety is a remit they’ve (you need to read between the lines there) taken upon themselves as a means to showboat around the world with all the benefits PLUS keep oneself at the forefront for re-election.
Totally agree.
I think this is going to open a can of worms. Not sure where this would lead too.
Could circuits sue teams for the damage their fans leave on some of the facilities. Just asking.
No
No, but I can forsee a situation where circuits seek compensation if a car destroys a section of armco.
Already happens at the amateur level. First SCCA division to race at Barber got a $60K bill after the race for Armco and landscaping. COTA and Watkins Glenn are the worst, COTA has extremely punitive rates for anything that they think detracts from the pristine look of the track.
/Could circuits sue teams for the damage their fans leave on some of the facilities. /
You’d rather ask whether circuits should sue teams for crash damages to barriers etc.
Malaysia has had a few drain cover problems over the years. I remember Montoya being a victim of one here. Strange how it is still a problem.
Wasn’t that China? I think Channel 4 mentioned it in commentary. As far as I can remember that was the first drain cover incident I’d ever seen.
You are correct. It was on the exit of turn 10 at Shanghai.
2005 from memory.
Yes, China 2005,
A drain cover came up through the floor and through a cooler. Think it was an oil cooler IIRC.
Didn’t wholly destroy McLaren’s chances of winning the WCC, but it certainly didn’t help.
Cost me (and a lot of others) bonus money. Perhaps I should sue the Chinese GP organisers retrospectively. 😉
I’m pretty sure that Ron Dennis certainly said at the time that McLaren were nailed on for the WCC but for that drain cover.
It was China.
Montoya’ reaction?: “That’s motor racing.”
Compare and contrast.
Yes. Well. Montoya was ‘only’ the driver, not the owner.
Fair point. Any idea how Mr. Dennis responded?
FP1 Monaco last year. Button hit a drain cover loosened by Rosberg.
It wasn’t the first time either that there have been problems in Monaco, as in the 2010 race Barrichello crashed out after a drain cover smashed his rear suspension.
To my way of thinking this is anything but complicated. The track is defined by the white lines at either edge. The kerbs are not part of the track. If teams choose to use them for performance benefit it’s just tough if damage ensues.
Where do you stop? It has happened countless times where an aggressive saw toothed kerb has damaged the floors of F1 cars. Do the teams want compensating for this also?
In the case of Haas, everyone seems very concerned about them not paying for the damage. Given the lack of genuine sponsorship on the cars are they about to go belly up? I never thought the idea of using an F1 team to sell your power tools in America was going to reap any sort of benefit…
Errr, Richard.
Just how often does the goose at the top, aka C Whiting Esquire, enforce track definition as per those white lines…..?
Well perhaps he should start… On another point, I don’t buy the damage assessment. Has it really cost HAAS that amount? Surely it only costs them if they need to manufacture new parts to replenish the ones replaced before the end of the season?
In five races the cars become museum pieces and the value of already manufactured parts hits pretty much zero…
If I drove two wheels over the footway every time I made a turn I would soon be in court. The F1 stance that I still had some rubber on the tarmac wouldn’t get me far.
It’s time to enforce track limits rigidly.
So presumably everybody should have then criticised Gilles Villeneuve for the famous image of him during the 1981 Argentine GP, where most of his car was over the kerb and off the track whilst he was powersliding his car around a corner?
And would be apoplectic if they saw the 1979 Dutch GP… 🙂
Several moons ago when I was involved as a technical official for Formula Palmer Audi a situation occurred where a recovery driver at Brands Hatch didn’t stop his crane boom lowering and the hook went straight through an engine cover – a single moulding costing more than a few hundred pounds as I recall.
There was quite a fuss and I don’t really know the outcome except that JP and his partners ended up buying the place!
Hi Joe
I noticed Lewis brought this up in the driver briefing.
Didn’t something like this happen in turkey a few years ago? Do you know if the same question was asked then?
Usd 750 K ? Sorry to correct you but Ted Kravitz talked to Gene Haas and Gene ( signs of all of the checks AND is his own money so he knows … ) said
Usd 500 K to Ted , when asked for it .
Steiner said 750
Under the ‘previous management’ the 250K difference would have been down to BAT (Bernie’s Added Tax) – I don’t know how it would have worked exactly but he would have made sure of getting his slice of it!
This could be fun, we’ve not had a F1 court case for a couple of years. I believe the FIA should cough up, as it’s obviously a road safety issue.
In cases like this, lawyers seldomly lose…
See also: Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Plus ça change.
Well it’s the circuits drain covers that have caused the mess so the circuit owners should pay in my opinion? It would seem logical. Certainly it would seem ridiculous for Haas F1 to foot the bill but when logic has never stopped ridiculous decisions within the F1 community.
There are previous examples of cast manhole covers and drain grilles coming adrift on street tracks. Organisers spot weld them before a race, but I remember at the one and only World Sports Car race on Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in 1990 a Porsche 962 hitting a manhole cover after the ground effects of the car in front had dislodged it. The carnage and fire was spectacular and the race stopped with half points awarded……so there is a precedent for the Haas accident, wonder what the outcome for Brun was?
That was indeed a nasty incident, the drain cover ripping through the floor of the Porsche, rupturing fuel lines etc. To add to the drama, the ambulance taking the driver (Jesus Pareja) to hospital got lost. Not so sure Jesus did not end up hailing a taxi or something! Fortunately his injuries were not too serious or the outcome could have been a lot worse.
Insurance…
I’m amazed there’s no existing protocol for this considering it’s notnthw first time. I believe Monaco a couple of years ago was the most recent but I think it actually happens in Malaysia once before? Early on?
I’m amazed that the FIA hasn’t already buttoned this down to being the teams responsibility to pay for damage to their car.
On the other hand, if one flipped up and killed someone I suppose the circuit would be responsible?
I recall that a similar thing happened to Walter Brun back in the Group C days, destroying one of his Porsches. I cannot, though, remember the outcome of his claim.
Hi Joe,
Surely there is a precedent. What happened when Montoya hit the drain?
Thanks
He kept on driving.
Until the car ran out of coolant and had to retire.
I would have thought that all Haas would have to do bill FOM* for the damage as they have a contract with them and not the circuit, the promoter or the national sporting body. It comes down to the old liability verses responsibility and I assume that somewhere in the contract that it will state that FOM* will provide the infrastructure to go racing and not to do so in a safe manner would be a very easy ‘breach of contract’ to argue.
Then let FOM fight it out with who they want.
*Or whichever of its companies signs the Concorde agreement.
Someone is not known as ‘Teflon Charlie’ for no reason…..
Hi Joe, out of topic but though i would ask you here anyway. Read that Ferrari sent their gearbox to Italy and it seems ok now. so the question is how does FIA make sure that engine parts such as gearbox, ICE etc aint tampered with by teams in between races?
There are seals
I like your cynicism… it looked like exactly the sort of shunt that would push a driveshaft into the drivetrain… It truly is amazing you can inspect a gearbox sufficiently well without taking it apart…
borescope
You are wrong.
We now hear that the gearbox casing was damaged and has been replaced and there won’t be any seals INSIDE the box! Maybe there was an examiner from Ferrari International Assistance present when this took place – or not!
Come on its the FIA not checking everything before the start of practice.
If your going to blame someone …it has to the governing body who then can sue the circuit owners. So then you can have an arbitrary decision to resolve the matter.
Personally it’s abit rich Haas trying to get money for an incident on track.
Every team can start found that. Williams and Ferrari can sue each other for the prang at the end of the Malaysia race.
Or Red Bull can sue Ferrari for the incident in Singapore…with Mclaren suing Ferrari and Red Bull. Haas can waste their money in court. If they loose then they loose valuable money Tey should be spending on development.
Apologies for spelling errors predictive text going haywire 🤖
This has the look of a legal quagmire which, were I Haas, I’d be hesitant about driving into. If Sepang’s owners hold their hands up and foot the bill, fine. If they do try and deflect the bill on to the FIA (which they might, seeing as there probably isn’t going to be another Grand Prix here) then I’d probably conclude it wasn’t worth the energy and money the team would have to expend in pursuing it.
At the end of the day, I’d imagine a big chunk of that $750k will be labour costs rather than parts and materials. Haas are paying those salaries anyway, so would struggle to prove meaningful damages to that extent. Yes, they could argue those staff could be more effectively deployed for that time, but they are a racing team and they have to be prepared to do this after a race anyway if, say, Grosjean had been punted into the wall on the same corner. Presumably Pirelli don’t foot the bill if a tyre failure results in a big wreck, either.
@Kenny Carwash – Haas buy in their chassis. Replacing it will cost them money.
Seems to be no mention about this years cars having vastly increased downforce which would in effect suck up that drain cover. Maybe last years cars wouldn’t have done.
Also its F1’s fault the cars are so expensive. When the circuit signed the long term contract the car probably cost £50000 to fix similar damage while the teams income was probably the same as today.
Teams are fined for unsafe pit release, etc. Was the circuit fined for being unsafe?
Oh dear, I hope the Malaysian Grand Prix isn’t dropped from the calendar next year because of this :p
In all seriousness, the outcome will be interesting as it will set a precedent. This has happened previously, albeit very rarely, but it will likely happen again in the future and the teams will likely refer to this case.
Shit happens.
Not in a family show, it doesn’t…
…unless it’s Niki Lauda speaking on live TV!
Do you know who paid the bill when the recovery crane dropped the historic F1 car at Monaco an
couple of years ago?
Really a simple case of negligence and not the fault of Haas or Grosjean.
The lawyers,as ever, will have expensive fun deciding who pays what and we cannot know the arrangements between the different parties.
Once upon a time train drivers ( maybe still ) had to tap wheels with a simple,, but heavy, hammer. Similar action after each session by the relevant marshal should ensure integrity.
and there’s an old joke about the guy who sent 1000 wheels to the scrapyard before he found out there was a crack in his hammer …
A competent design process should normally include 3-levels of risk assessment. The first at the paper design level, the second during construction and the third upon completion. These should be done by a truly independent body. Not a Bernie shoe-in.
You might reasonably expect an FIA specification to call for French drains alongside the track and gullies at the low points capable of handling expected rainfall- very heavy in Malaysia. Gullies are usually cast iron and can be capable of being fixed down by recessed bolts. They should not be placed at the apex i.e. no apex can be a low point – they should be the opposite side to the turn-in point.
Someone should check that all bolts are in place and secure before an event.
When a new event is proposed Charlie normally goes out for a day, or so and signs it off. This is a key failing in the Tilke / FIA process. When it comes to safety they always tend to get it wrong.there seems to be no one asking “what could go wrong?” Like the Formula 4 race, they only ask questions when the problem is bleeding obvious.
Charlie should have retired a while back – the world has moved on. I can’t see any team rushing to employ him after 3-months gardening leave.
Exactly Rodger J. My first thought was ‘why weren’t the drain covers bolted?’ Easy to check that they are secure, and easy to remove if necessary.
If the covers were welded down and were made of cast iron then failure of the welds would be likely as cast iron is impossible to weld reliably. A car driving one on could easilly fracture the welds.
One wonders how much of the purported 750k is the Mitnick factor.
In the early 90s, Kevin Mitnick was one of the first to be busted for computer hacking. On being asked what was the cost of his poking about, one of his targets decided the cost of a few man-hours to do a wipe & reinstall on the computer in question wasn’t enough, so they added the cost of replacing the computer. And the cost of the building in which the computer was sited. And the cost of a hundred year lease of the land on which the building was built. And the cost of replacing the planet on which the land was situated. And so on, until they arrived at a sufficiently dramatic figure they could bleat about.
Sky F1 have the pre-race driver’s briefing from the weekend on their website. Several drivers had noticed the drain cover was loose for several laps before the Haas hit it. They all believed it was a piece of bodywork that was stuck in the drain.
Charlie Whiting said the trackside marshalls hadn’t noticed it before the incident.
It’s very easy to shout “negligence” on these things, but say there is (as I am certain there is) a procedure that is followed before every session of practice / qualifying / racing to inspect the track and all identified hazards. Provided this procedure is carried out fully and competently, where is the negligence?
What is a reasonable inspection of a drain cover? Visual to be sure the bolts are in place and it is sitting flush and square or taking it apart and re seating it?
Realistically the former, in which case this drain probably passed the test, so there is no negligence.
Quote Nicki Lauder.