When is a stage considered 'dangerous'?

[cosmicpanda]

From a non-driver's perspective, it seems that fast stages with a big drop on one side of the road, blind corners and such are fairly common and accepted. I seem to recall even WRC.com describing such sections as 'scary'.

How do these compare in terms of risk with, say, Ouninpohja?

[Langdale Forest]

There is no real definition of 'dangerous'.

Accidents can happen on any rally stage, even slow Super Special stages, Ouninpohja is a scary stage because the trees are near the track, big drops are scary, just ask JML aster his crash in Portugal last year.

Hinklestiens in Germany are dangerous, but the driver need to take care on hazardous sections of road.

If the WRC was to be totally safe, it would not run anymore.

[cosmicpanda]

I ask because the last time I read the WRC regulations a stage being considered 'dangerous' by drivers meant that it could not be run.

[Langdale Forest]

What stage was this?

[Iskald]

I ask because the last time I read the WRC regulations a stage being considered 'dangerous' by drivers meant that it could not be run.

Very strange, as this can`t be defined objectively. Normally there is only one criteria that can be measured, and that is speed. FIA isn`t happy when stages reach average speeds above 130 km/h. Both in Sweden and Finland (especially the classic version of Ouninpohja) stages has been deemed "too fast". It doesn`t necessarily translate to "dangerous".

There are lots of other dangers than speed in rallying. Many rallies have stages with big drops and other features outside the road that can be dangerous if you go off. Such stages are still run many places and without FIA interfering with it, but you certainly don`t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a car going off the road probably will result in a fatal accident.

I think all rally drivers and codrivers (on most levels) has some stages that they don`t like to run. I certainly had some of those during a 30 year career, stages that I didn`t look forward to and drew a big breath of relief every time we crossed the finish line. It was of course a "feeling" based on pure subjectivity. It could be just a part of a stage, where you knew that an offroad excursion could have grave consequences.

But then again, rallying will never be for the fainthearted. To run a car in speed in excess of 200 km/h on a gravel road through a forest with big trees can never be totally safe. Rallying is in fact a dangerous sport compared to most other sports, but to judge what is too dangerous is very difficult.

[tmx]

In the IRC there is a stage that reach above 140kmh average speed and they do not impose a speed limit. Its also base on the weight and construction of the car that effects how it impacts. From watching different onboards, I do feel Ouninpohja is too dangerous with the curent WRC cars, but its just my opinion.

For during events, due to weather condition if the ambulance can't drive/land into the stage, then it should be canceled.

What tickle me isn't so much the speed of the car, but always managing to find people standing in dangerous corners, usually outside of marshal supervision

[Mirek]

Yes, it's true that generally the lower average speed the lower average risk in crash but as Iskald wrote there are also relatively slow stages which in my opinion are pretty dangerous.

One of those for me is famous Monte Carlo stage Lantosque - Lucerám. It's very technical, average speed between 80 and 90 km/h but there is absolutely no place for mistakes. Only some 20 cm high stone rack prevents You from neverending fall into deep. This year I asked one driver who was there for the first time how does he feel there. He told me: "Thanks god we're running there in the dark. You can't see down and therefore You don't think about it a lot."

On the other hand 150 km/h average in desert might be very safe speed. It's questionable issue. To judge it by average speed only is very simplifying. You can always make even the most dangerous stage slower than safety limit by some chicanes, labyrints in villages on the way etc. It will be safe by tables but won't change at all. There should be someone who doesn't hesitate to say when it's not usual always present portion of risk in this sport but pure hazard without some sporting value.

[BDunnell]

I think Iskald's post is one of the best I've read on these forums for a long while. Succinct, interesting and accurate.

[bowler]

There is no simple definition of "dangerous".

When there is some significant factor that makes itso, then it is considered to be so.

All of the stages in the WRC are inspected beforehand, and points that are considered dangerous are modified or deleted. The modification could be adding a safety barrier or adding a warning, or changing the road layout. It could be moving the start or finish to remove the area if it is at the beginning or end of a stage.

The danger can also be from the positioning of things adjacent to the stage, like people or trees, posts etc. These are removed prior to the stage running.

Most stages today are considered dangerous if spectators get in the way, as the other inanimate obstacles will have been removed prior to the stage running.

Speed in itself is not dangerous, and most accidents do not occur on high speed sections. They occur on the transition of high speed to low speed, or they occur in highly technical areas where the car is transitioning from one direction to another.

Accidents themselves are not dangerous on their own as the safety features built into the cars makes the vehicle a critical part of the equation.

[jonkka]

Speed in itself is not dangerous, and most accidents do not occur on high speed sections.

Accidents themselves are not dangerous on their own as the safety features built into the cars makes the vehicle a critical part of the equation.

I am inclined to disagree. It's not five years since Michael Park died in an accident despite safety features built into Peugeot 307WRC.

What comes to speed, the kinetic energy of the car depends very much on the speed (remember the formula E=1/2 m v^2?) and that energy needs to be dissipated in a collision. I think speed itself is major part of the danger.

[Iskald]

In the IRC there is a stage that reach above 140kmh average speed and they do not impose a speed limit. Its also base on the weight and construction of the car that effects how it impacts. From watching different onboards, I do feel Ouninpohja is too dangerous with the curent WRC cars, but its just my opinion.


140 km/h average speed is really ridiculous and has very little to do with rallying. It may still be that the stage isn`t particularly dangerous, but I can`t imagine drivers like this stage very much.

Ouninpohja has been discussed a lot and FIA has asked the organiser to change it (divide the stage into two parts etc.) to get rid of the fastest parts. The history of the stage doesn`t really point to Ouninpohja being much more dangerous than other stages in Finland. It is however a daunting experience. I had the chance to sample the classic 34 km version of the stage in 2000, and it was a real eyeopener. I still keep the notes, where I had 58 jumps noted for the 34 kilometres! And I remember clearly that we had to wait 20 minutes for the start of the second time through. We were told by some marshals that one car had gone off and there was an ambulance on the stage to assist an injured driver. But just wait, they said, the stage will start again soon. If we weren`t a bit sceptical and nervous before, we sure became then!

The Likenas stage in Sweden has also been much modified during the last years. When we ran the stage in its classical form during 2002-2003 it must have been the fastest stretch of road in the WRC ever. The stage was 41 kms, and the last 10 kms was actually quite twisty - ending up with a very slow lap lap of the mickey mouse-like folkrace-track in Likenas. So average speed was not so bad, maybe a bit above 120 km/h. But the first 30 kms, holy mackerel! I am sure if we had measured that part of the stage separately the average speed would have been above 145 km/h. It was sixth gear and flat out nearly the whole time. It was indeed scary stuff. Then again, the history of the stage didn`t tell of many serious accidents. FIA still deemed the speed of the stage to make it dangerous and asked the organisers to run a different and shorter version.

[raybak]

We had a stage 2 years at Targa Tasmania, Reeces Dam and it was voted by all the drivers for that stage not to be run again as it was too fast. We saw 260kmh on one stretch, if we had come off it would have been game over permanently. It's a hard call to make for organisers to can stages, but also they should be working on their route for the event to make sure that the stages are as safe as can be. You can't have them totally safe though or this wouldn't be rallying.

Ray

[Livewireshock]

The New Zealand Rally Championship held a tarmac rally as part of their championship which had been predominantly gravel until then. It was held on the North Island, just east of Hamilton. Constantly the speed averages were in excess of the organiser's planned average and the talk amongst the majority of the rally competitors was one of shock and fear at some of the speeds they were reaching during the event. The rally has not been run again.

[bowler]

I am inclined to disagree. It's not five years since Michael Park died in an accident despite safety features built into Peugeot 307WRC.

What comes to speed, the kinetic energy of the car depends very much on the speed (remember the formula E=1/2 m v^2?) and that energy needs to be dissipated in a collision. I think speed itself is major part of the danger.

Jonkka,

I did not make my point clear. Speed in itself is not an issue, it is the rapid change from fast to slow that causes the problem, especially if that involves hitting something solid. Fast sections generally run well, but that is not to sanction crazy speeds for the the sake of them.

Barriers and chicanes are often used to reduce average speeds so a stage looks OK, but they do not reduce high speeds, rather they are applied to reduce average speeds.

In this case averages can be misleading.

High speed on tarmac is more dangerous than high speed on gravel as the transition from traction to no traction is much faster and less progressive.

I don't advocate high speeds, just want to point out that speed is not the issue until something else becomes involved, and then the faster you are going makes the mess bigger potentially if the run off is not safe.

[jaytee10375]

I ask because the last time I read the WRC regulations a stage being considered 'dangerous' by drivers meant that it could not be run.

Wasn't that the eventual reason for the original Ouninpohja route to be cancelled due to Loeb (and probably others) complaining about its danger?

[Mintexmemory]

Stages can become dangerous owing to freak climatic conditions, such as rain in Ireland in winter ;)
If the right tyre for the changed conditions is not in the Pirelli wagon then what would have been a perfectly reasonable stage becomes 'dangerous'. Hence the cancellation of the 2 flooded stages on Rally Ireland last year. Maybe the lack of daylight also had something to do with it, but that never stopped the drivers who took on Kielder in the 70s and 80s

[bluuford]

Well, My fired who spectated that event told that in the worst places there were more than 50 cm of water on the road. I guess if you are not farmer and you are not owning tractor, then you cannot find suitable tires (wheels) from your truck :-)

[Mintexmemory]

Yes it was bloody wet, but I drove on a UK road rally in 2008 where there was standing water 1m deep in places, the Peugeot 205s all drowned out but my Saab 93 kept going. The point I'm making is that some stages aren't dangerous per se it is the inability of the cars to adjust to the conditions that make them dangerous. Sloughan Glen, where I was spectating at the start of day 2, had plenty of deep puddles and surface water but was at least in 'daylight'

[Wittmanello]

]

One of those for me is famous Monte Carlo stage Lantosque - Lucerám. It's very technical, average speed between 80 and 90 km/h but there is absolutely no place for mistakes. Only some 20 cm high stone rack prevents You from neverending fall into deep. This year I asked one driver who was there for the first time how does he feel there. He told me: "Thanks god we're running there in the dark. You can't see down and therefore You don't think about it a lot."



No no it is not dangerous at all! Those walls are really indestructible :D

[Wittmanello]

You should also add the stage on Acores where you are at the top of the vulcano - if you survive the 1200 feet drop by any chance you drown in the crater lake below

[Livewireshock]

To really consider what a dangerous stage is then consider this.

The African Rally Championship has just run the Safari Rally again in Kenya on semi-open roads. Conrad Rautenbach's agent was interviewed on TotakRally and he said that a clearance vehicle ran 30 minutes ahead of the field to open the stage but otherwise there was still a chance of local traffic ignoring that warning and enter the stage area.

[J4MIE]

Traffic on roads is always a hazard on African events but most seem to understand and get out of the way, I was there and it didn't seem too bad but then there are always people with no sense of self-preservation, though personally I would say spectators standing in silly places makes me more worried. I'd say you tend to find this worst in central/eastern europe though.

[Mirek]

No no it is not dangerous at all! Those walls are really indestructible :D

Hehe, You tried I know but on wrong place at the end of stage, didn't You? The first part was better :D :D