The F1 driver transfer discussion/speculation archiveFormula 1

[mustafur]

Missing a race due to concussion isn't unprecedented, remember Sergio Perez missed the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix after his big shunt at Monaco a few weeks beforehand.

Yeah but Perez didn't stay in Hospital over 1 night and was able to race 3 weeks after, from a much more serious crash.

 

[GTPorsche]

Yeah but Perez didn't stay in Hospital over 1 night and was able to race 3 weeks after, from a much more serious crash.

He also hit a tire barrier, whereas Alonso hit an unprotected wall. The tirewall, and the car for that matter, took the brunt of the force away from the driver. Alonso wasn't that lucky in that regard considering the wall has no give to it and the car didn't give either.

 

[Dennisch]

Maybe these safety measures for Alonso are all because we had a terrible crash in Suzuka last year and they don't want anything similar to happen to another driver.

Ever thought about that?

Stop thinking ridiculous things.

 

[mustafur]

He also hit a tire barrier, whereas Alonso hit an unprotected wall. The tirewall, and the car for that matter, took the brunt of the force away from the driver. Alonso wasn't that lucky in that regard considering the wall has no give to it and the car didn't give either.

I understand that, but Perez hit the wall directly sideways going much faster and was a higher G hit.

Don't think its rediculious that something else might be a cause as well.

It will probably come out later.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They just need to make the situation clear

They have made the situation clear - Alonso crashed, he was hospitalised, and now he's out. They don't owe anyone any further information, certainly not to the extent of revealing Alonso's medical history for the sake of satisfying demand.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Missing a race due to concussion isn't unprecedented, remember Sergio Perez missed the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix after his big shunt at Monaco a few weeks beforehand.

Yeah but Perez didn't stay in Hospital over 1 night and was able to race 3 weeks after, from a much more serious crash.

Not so, @mustafur, Perez did indeed take to the car two weeks later in Montreal but was too nauseous to complete a session. He didn't race until four weeks after the Monagasque accident (in Valencia, if I remember correctly).

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I understand that, but Perez hit the wall directly sideways going much faster and was a higher G hit.

Don't think its rediculious that something else might be a cause as well.

It will probably come out later.

You mean during the investigation that is already being posed by the FIA, who are more than willing it seems in this area to clearly place blame when it comes to crash investigations.

 

[marco89IT]

(Rough) translation of a Sport Bild article, via Twitter:

Sport Bild is also reporting that "after the accident Alonso was speaking Italian and he believed to be at Ferrari"

 

[psychoazubi]

(Rough) translation of a Sport Bild article, via Twitter:

View attachment 322208

Sport Bild is also reporting that "after the accident Alonso was speaking Italian and he believed to be at Ferrari"

Well, Sport Bild is a bulls**t "news"paper just like the Sun is in England. More reliable sources, like Motorsport-total.com and auto-motor-sport.de report today that it is very unlike (95%) that he got an eletric shock and medicins agree that this is highly unlikely.
Both sources report that it is possible that Alonso went unwell and therefore crashed and the reason he had to stay for 4 days in the hospital was to find out why he went unwell. But they also report that Alonso thought he still drives for Ferrari.
Here's the article in german:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...sierte-in-den-letzten-3-sekunden-9299707.html
It may be possible that they will publish the article in English since they do this for a few article since 2-3 weeks.

 

[Nessy]

Sounds like concussion to me.

I remember my sister running into a lamppost when we were kids. I remember her being very confused after it had happened.. That, and the constant vomiting on the way to hospital.

 

[psychoazubi]

Sounds like concussion to me.

I remember my sister running into a lamppost when we were kids. I remember her being very confused after it had happened.. That, and the constant vomiting on the way to hospital.

And he does not drive in Melbourne because of the Second Impact Syndrom (SIS) which states that a second impact on the head, even a weak impact in the 21 days after the first one may cause a serious damage to the brain.

 

[marco89IT]

Well, Sport Bild is a bulls**t "news"paper just like the Sun is in England. More reliable sources, like Motorsport-total.com and auto-motor-sport.de report today that it is very unlike (95%) that he got an eletric shock and medicins agree that this is highly unlikely.
Both sources report that it is possible that Alonso went unwell and therefore crashed and the reason he had to stay for 4 days in the hospital was to find out why he went unwell. But they also report that Alonso thought he still drives for Ferrari.
Here's the article in german:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...sierte-in-den-letzten-3-sekunden-9299707.html
It may be possible that they will publish the article in English since they do this for a few article since 2-3 weeks.

I'm not saying it is reliable, but the rumor about a possible boycott at the Australian GP was worth a mention, no more than that. I think that's very unlikely as well, we'll see if it develops as an unfounded speculation or something credible.

 

[psychoazubi]

I'm not saying it is reliable, but the rumor about a possible boycott at the Australian GP was worth a mention, no more than that. I think that's very unlikely as well, we'll see if it develops as an unfounded speculation or something credible.

Spreading rumors is what they mostly do and as long as none of the reliable sources writing something similar, they should be ignored.

 

[KWZX10]

They have made the situation clear - Alonso crashed, he was hospitalised, and now he's out. They don't owe anyone any further information, certainly not to the extent of revealing Alonso's medical history for the sake of satisfying demand.

I was talking about the crash itself, that's where my doubts are.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I was talking about the crash itself, that's where my doubts are.

And my point still stands: they don't owe anybody an explanation (except maybe Alonso, but I'm sure he already knows). Alonso was accelerating, got caught in a cross-wind and went into the wall at 150km/h. There is no evidence to suggest that anything else happened. There is only the assumption that McLaren are holding something back simply because of the unusual nature of the accident, but that is not proof of anything.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Meanwhile, Giedo van der Garde has gone to the Victorian Supreme Court to try and force Sauber to honour the deal that he claimed to have agreed upon in June:

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/mot...de-demands-start/story-fnibbz73-1227249857089

 

[DK]

I would have thought an F1 car wouldn't get blown sideways by ~10m by a crosswind. Maybe I'm neglecting the effect that crosswind might have on aerodynamic grip.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I would have thought an F1 car wouldn't get blown sideways by ~10m by a crosswind. Maybe I'm neglecting the effect that crosswind might have on aerodynamic grip.

The story was that it took a crosswind and moved onto the astroturf (I guess that's a matter of fewer then 3 metres) where it lost grip and continued to the wall. To have that kind of momentum I imagine (also a guess) that Alonso was using all the track as he exited T2?

 

[GTPorsche]

Upset the aerodynamics on a lightweight car that relies mostly on it's aerodynamics and it can be knocked off course slightly.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

Martin Brundle has said a number of times how the smallest of pushes would spin a Formula 1 car at the limit of grip. Makes it easy to imagine how the smallest rise or fall in wind speed could cause a big crash. Dean Stoneman had a big crash at Jerez today in Formula Renault 3.5 testing, suspected that high winds were a factor again.

 

[MonSpaNur]

There is no evidence to suggest that anything else happened. There is only the assumption that McLaren are holding something back simply because of the unusual nature of the accident

The nature of (the official explanation for) the accident is not unusual.
Not only today Dean Stoneman had an accident precisely because of the same reason, but also, during a season, that kind of accident occurs many times, although, usually, nothing ends up unexplained.

The reason for all the controversy surrounding Alonso crash, is because the official explanations, the state of the car, and what happened to Alonso (after the crash), they all do not add up.

That car did not crashed at 150 km/h and his driver did not ended up 3 days in hospital (and needing 3 weeks for full recovery), that should be very clear to all who saw the pictures of the car after the accident.

I developed a theory, based in something well known by the scientists (when facing a paradox, the simplest of the explanations is the correct one):

An brain cyst, already removed, is the explanation for the accident.

The (unofficial) description of the crash, the symptoms, the time in hospital (only in some cases and considering the latest developments in brain surgery) and the length of the home recovery, match those of a victim of a brain cyst and his recovery after surgery.

That would leave McLaren with little explanations to give, when/if after the all clear from the doctors, they reveal the real cause of all of this.
The only inconsistencies in their press release, would be the cause of the crash (not the wind, but a, probably partial, loss of conscience) and the reason for the health issues (not a contusion resulting from the crash, but resulting from the operation).
But that can be explained with the, understandable, wish to avoid speculations about Alonso future and to keep his privacy while recovering.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The reason for all the controversy surrounding Alonso crash, is because the official explanations, the state of the car, and what happened to Alonso (after the crash), they all do not add up.

I am aware of that. But do you know what I don't see? Anything that says McLaren has any duty, responsibility or obligation to reveal any details of the accident. Nor do I see anything that says that anyone outside of those immediately affected by it are entitled to know everything or have any right to demand more information.

 

[MonSpaNur]

But do you know what I don't see? Anything that says McLaren has any duty, responsibility or obligation to reveal any details of the accident. Nor do I see anything that says that anyone outside of those immediately affected by it are entitled to know everything or have any right to demand more information.

You do not see, but they have that duty, responsibility and obligation.

That`s the two sides of the same coin and you only can choose one of then:

Success, fame and fortune - failure, indifference and penury.

You can not have success, fame, and fortune, while expecting indifference at same time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The reason for all the controversy surrounding Alonso crash, is because the official explanations, the state of the car, and what happened to Alonso (after the crash), they all do not add up.

Yes they do. On his fastest lap in an unproven car he lost control and made a two-axle impact into a wall, sideways (circumventing any deformable crash structures). His head hit one side of the cockpit then the other. The car was unsettled in a notoriously windy corner on a very blustery day, the car was as neo-prototype as an F1 car gets, especially given McLaren's lack of high-speed running.

You do not see, but they have that duty, responsibility and obligation.

Source?

 

[KWZX10]

I am aware of that. But do you know what I don't see? Anything that says McLaren has any duty, responsibility or obligation to reveal any details of the accident. Nor do I see anything that says that anyone outside of those immediately affected by it are entitled to know everything or have any right to demand more information.

Well, security maybe.
If this happened because of some kind of fail of the car (not necessary the infamous shock that a lot of people think) because we all know how many problem they had, and they're hiding the fact for, you know, reputation maybe, if this is some kind of ''new'' problem that other cars can have as well, and Alonso suffered of that kind of strangely bad consequences (for a not-that-terrible crash, if that was the reason, of course) because the car doesn't have enough, or right protection against something.
That's the reason why a lot of people, even big names like Minardi, ask for a complete explanation, imo.

 

[MonSpaNur]

On his fastest lap in an unproven car he lost control and made a two-axle impact into a wall, sideways

Now you only need to explain the lack of damage.

Source?

Common sense.

And he says that with the fame, the privacy disappears.

Edit:

(circumventing any deformable crash structures).

Not all.

 

[GTPorsche]

There's a huge difference between Stoneman's crash and Alonso's.

The biggest being that Stoneman's car was destroyed, meaning the energy of the impacts was thrown outward from the car instead of the car remaining intact and the driver absorbing the impacts.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Now you only need to explain the lack of damage.

You know the G-readings, you know the car hit axle-ends on (the worst type of car->wall impact for a driver). Knowing a little about the cars will explain the lack of damage.

Common sense.

So McLaren's "duty" and "obligation" only exist in your opinion? Thanks for clarifying.

 

[MonSpaNur]

the car remaining intact

Can you explain why?

You know the G-readings,

No, I do not know then.
Can you tell me, please, your sources of that information?

you know the car hit axle-ends on (the worst type of car->wall impact for a driver). Knowing a little about the cars will explain the lack of damage.

No, that do not explain the lack of damage.
For that to be true, the car needed to hit the wall at a very low speed, and a angle of 90º, (the dynamics of the accident make it impossible to have happened) and to bounce back to the track, not to slide down the wall.

Edit: And the car would have touched the wall with his left side, for your theory to be true.

So McLaren's "duty" and "obligation" only exist in your opinion? Thanks for clarifying.

Is not my opinion, is common sense.

You can not have success, fame, and fortune, while expecting indifference at same time.
Is not my fault if do not know that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, I do not know then.
Can you tell me, please, your sources of that information?

It's widely-reported and not disputed (example). In a 30g crash one can easily conclude that a 4kg brain attains a weight of 120kg. Surely you can understand the concussive effect of that?

No, that do not explain the lack of damage.
For that to be true, the car needed to hit the wall at a very low speed, and a angle of 90º, (the dynamics of the accident make it impossible to have happened) and to bounce back to the track, not to slide down the wall.

With the greatest of respect I suggest that you don't know what you're talking about. Here's a fuller explanation of the accident from F1 themselves; link. Why might you think a car might only hit sideways-on at low speed?

You said earlier that, in terms of a duty of reportage, McLaren...

have that duty, responsibility and obligation.

You now say that it isn't fact at all, nor opinion...

Is not my opinion, is common sense.

...and include a quote that defines a formed opinion. Are you entirely sane?

You can not have success, fame, and fortune, while expecting indifference at same time.
Is not my fault if do not know that.

Ah.