http://www.crash.net/uk/en/feature_view.asp?cid=4&fid=8250
Very sad indeed. It's all over the news wires. Speed is showing the rally this evening but I imagine they will edit out the crash in respects to those involved. It takes great courage to sit in the other seat and entrust your life to someone else. Competing at the top rungs of motorsport is risk enough but to drive or co-pilot a WRC car takes even greater courage and passion !!! Regards, Jon www.flatoutracing.net
Absolutely. I could not do it. All the best to his family and his driver, who must be having a tough time of it right now. Pete
My condolences to his family/team/friends. That has to be a WRC driver's worst fear, taking a blow directly to the door like that. From what I understand, he died instantly. No suffering whatsoever, if there is such a thing. One could only imagine what must be going thru Markko Martin's mind, as he was sitting right beside him. Thankfully Martin didn't suffer any physical injuries, but surely he is emotionally hurt right now. I also admire Sebastean Loeb's actions, by intentionally showing up to the checkpoint early to incur a 2 minute penalty, so that he would not clinch the WRC title under those circumstances. Peugeot withdrew all their cars, including Gronholm's folling that, which would have let Loeb clinch by winning. He did a very gentlemen act by incuring that penalty so that he wouldn't clinch. And yes, SpeedTV did not show the accident. In fact, they showed no Day 3 highlights at all. They went straight to the accident, and the somber scenes afterwards. I did find it interesting that they did not mention WHY Loeb got a 2 minute penalty. They simply said "Solberg won after Loeb incured a 2 minute penalty." but did not state why. On a slightly funny note, they showed a clip on Speed News of him asking Martin "Did you get to watch any football last night?" while in the middle of a stage, in between turns. I don't recall when that episode took place, if it was earlier in the weekend or not. That just shows what a great sense of humor he had. RIP "Beef".
I bet that the on board shot must be pretty gruesome. my condolences to him and his family, a terrible tragedy.
It is all very sad indeed, the pic of the crash shows how bad the impact was. My deepest sympathies to his family and friends and also to Markko Martin. It must be very hard on him as well. I don't know how he's coping, I would find it unbearable.
Apparently Loeb got the penalty for arriving early at the checkpoint, which he did on purpose so not to clinch the WRC title under those circumstances.
Michel Wyder died from a similar impact in Marc Surer's GpB RS200 in the Hessen Rally Germany in 1986 ... coincidentally also on SS15. Nicky Grist mentioned earlier in the event that this may have been the fastest rally in WRC, due to the unusally dry surfaces. Group B were high horsepower, one-off racers running on tight courses intended for production machines. Today, we have WRC spec cars ... with high horsepower, and significant modifications from production, still running on tight courses.
I'm sure Michael Park would not want to see his death as the catalyst for the banning of rallying or even WRC spec cars. While a human life is absolutely top of the important list ... lets please refrain from banning everything so that living becomes completely empty. Michael Park was out there living life and I for one bet he would not, if he could have his time again, change a thing. This modern world is becoming so over cautious that it is nauseating ... might as well top ourselves as we are no longer allowed to have any fun! Imagine how that affects the young generation, having NOTHING to look forward to, because some over cautious person/group decided that we are all incapable of making our own choice. Risks absolutely should be seen as a good thing, something to challenge ourselves with and to learn from ... not something to hide away from and effectively neuter society. Pete
I'd hardly advocate the banning of rallying. There are even faster one-off race cars. But they don't thread between the trees. There are times when the regs allow too many modifications from stock, and the cars get too fast for the courses. The options are to make safer courses, thereby turning rallying into dirt track racing, or to put rally cars back to production specs.
Your opinion. I'm sure some don't agree ... but their voice is small and the majority (cause they think they are doing the right thing) will agree and ban racing between trees. Remember people get involved VOLUNTEERILY in to motorsport and accept and enjoy the risks. People in Australia trip over small steps in the concrete footpaths and thus sue the council ... I say lift your legs higher when you walk, but the majority will think that these footpaths are dangerous ... bollocks I say. Just like Senna, Michael knew the risks and we made the car as strong as currently possible and ofcourse we should continue to think about safety improvements ... but I do not think that should be changing the race track, including moving trees. What they did to Imola was plain stupid. There was nothing wrong with the actual track ... just the run off area. Thus we have lost one of the great big balls race tracks to a mickey mouse cr@p track that they have made it in to. Senna would NOT have wanted that and would have been the first to say he made a mistake, etc. Now rallying and trees ... well if you remove the trees you no longer have rallying IMO, infact they will just go faster. So I say we as modern developed motorsport enthusiasts need to accept that injury IS infact possible just like motorcycle racers do ... otherwise the sport that we all love is dead. F1 has been neutered to close to unbearable boredom where people now spent weeks getting their nickers in a twist about how dangerous it was for Kimi when his tyre blew, and how McLaren, etc. were reckless, etc. ... what a load of utter cr@p. Nobody was in danger but the driver who 100% accept the gamble ... just like the rally team racing through the trees. The only change I do think is over due is actually removing the co driver ... surely with modern technology we can replace with a computer and thus the driver is only risking himself. Pete
Not at all: they actually go as fast as they can despite the trees. Removing trees would make rallying a lot safer... but it´s not possible to remove ALL the dangerous trees from ALL the World Championship stages. I think that this kind of accidents are inherent to rally racing. That´s one of the reasons because I prefer track racing. R.I.P. Michael Park.
This is not the first time a manufacturer withdrew it's cars from competiton after an accident, nor will it probably be the last. As far as removing trees from an event - well then that would remove quite a few racing venues from the race scene. Yes this was a very tragic death and I feel sorry for his family but this crash wasn't nearly as severe as one several years ago at the Pikes Peak Hill Climb. Our son videoed a worse one when a young guy came around a turn, lost it, went off an embankment and a large pine tree ended up inside the car with the driver. The poor guy wasn't aware that there was a malfunction of his car as he made the turn. Carol
And your opinion seems to be that there is no possibility except a complete ban. There's more to racing than "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred". Did helmets ruin racing? Did seat belts? There's a difference between courage to accept reasonable risk and recklessness to ignore any risk. The Group B cars were eliminated after a series of fatalities, and rally went on. The WRC spec cars can be tamed down without ruining rally or eliminating the trees. This is a matter, not of "the purity of the sport", but of catering to manufacturers. WRC regulations required the use of production hardware, with a few modifications allowed (mostly added impact protection). The manufacturers which didn't produce performance cars complained that they were being left out. Some manufacturers created limited production homologation cars, like the Stratos, to meet the production requirements -- and gave the public some fine cars. Other manufacturers complained that they didn't want to sell "dangerous racing cars" to the public, but wanted the image of rallying to sell their commuter appliances. Group B was created to let the commuter manufacturers (like Ford) build one-off race cars for rally. They were too dangerous on rally courses. With Group B gone, manufacturers continue to complain that they have to go racing with the hardware they sell to "the poor dumb public". The regulations have been getting progressively looser, until WRC spec cars share virtually no parts with the production machines, except the name plate. "My opinion" is that it won't kill rally to tell manufacturers that, to race sports cars, they have to build sports cars. Although it might kill French brand name dominance. (But Peugeot and Citroen are leaving WRC in 2006 anyway. FIA is frantically trying to woo Renault back to WRC.) Do we want to wait for two or three more fatalities before we ask if we need to go back to rallying real cars, instead of one-off monsters? Does rally need to be this dangerous, just to sell commuter cars to Jacques Q. Public? And what of the manufacturers who do build production cars? The public watch Petter et al flying through the trees ... but a 30 mph side impact will fold up a production STi or EVO. Racing isn't about drivers dying. It's about pushing the envelope. Rally is, IMO, more spectacular when you can push to the edge without worrying that one mistake will be fatal. It won't kill rally to slow the machines down by tightening the spec.
I am lost for words, my condolences to his family, team and everyone else. Park was one of the best codrivers out there.
I think from a safety standpoint they shouldn't change anything to the cars or the courses, but removing the co-driver might be a good idea. Perhaps having the co-driver hooked up to the driver with a video hookup and radio might be an option. Then perhaps the driver can be moved towards the center of the car which would be benefitical. Just a thought.
^that would work untill the power goes and then the driver is SOL... dont change any thing about the sport. The soprt is what it is, dangerous, every one who compets in WRC knows the dangers. they do it beacuse they love it and nothing will change that. every sport has it inharent dangers hence why they call it a sport.
No what I am saying is that if we keep tightening the specs, over time (and it might be a very long time) the sport dies. Ofcourse not ... And if you make the course too safe, then we are no longer pushing anything, but we have been neutered. Not now but in 50 years time after these continue refinements ... somebody will say gee 'Rallying used to really be something in the old days ...' as the cars putter past governed to 30mph in wide open spaces with spectators 1km back. I'm saying that it is time for us to say, 'heck we want to accept a degree of risk cause that is what makes our blood flow', just like a sky diver does or a rock climber, etc. We do not see sky divers limit themselves to 50m drops and rock climbers do not say 'heck we have lost a few climbers, so from now on we are only allowed to climb 75 degree banks'. Living is dangerous and you cannot make everything perfectly safe. Roger Freeth (NZ) died in a similar accident in the Perth rally about 10 years ago ... there was so little of the car left that it was hardly recogniseable. Now Roger Freeth was also a University lecturer and had spoken on TV about his love of motorsport (he also raced track cars, etc.) and plain and simple pointed out to all those that do not understand that he does it because it is fun and wakes him up. He did not want to die in a rally car, but he spoke about the risks and said that was part of the game and really part of why he competed, ie. the adrenilin, etc. I bet Michael was the same, and I know that I loved challenging myself in my humble club track years. Would the challenge be the same if it was perfectly safe ... NO! ... and thus maybe racing would not have satisfied me like it did. I'm not at all saying that I want to see people getting hurt, I just think we need to be careful and balanced with our safety views. We have come a very long way since the incredibly dangerous 70's and thanks to TV we have many people watching that really do not understand the sport. They need to understand that this sport IS dangerous and people can get hurt no matter how hard we try and to either: change channel and watch something else or accept it. Just like they accept football injuries, etc. Motorracing without risks (and sound) is just NOT motorracing! ... thus lets leave it alone PLEASE. Pete ps: The Group B cars were not too fast ... the throttle goes BOTH ways, thus as always a mistake was made.
What makes the WRC thrilling is the fact that they are so close to death and grief when blasting along through trees and rocks. And they have to psych up and do it several times a day. Take the risk away and you end up with only the ridiculous "spectator special" stages that are run in coned-off courses within stadiums.
So you're saying that rally is about the chance of drivers dying? When I was rallying, it wasn't "the thrill of cheating death" that brought me out. It was the thrill of tossing a car sideways through the gravel (or mud or snow or sand) at the hairy edge -- with the risk of sliding off and having to pry the fenders away from the wheels to continue. It was about vehicle control, and the fewest mistakes won -- not necessarily the most expensive machine. It was about the driver, not the hardware. When you race one-off pocket rockets through the trees, it's about the hardware -- how fast can you go. The driver's are all at the same level: one mistake and you're done ... maybe forever. So you have to stay further from the edge. They've replaced the scientific drivers with thrill seekers ... apparently to entertain a TV audience who want to see drivers risk death.
