Hammond Critical - Top Gear Car Crash!

james.miller · 24 Sep 2006 at 20:14

your still actually going on about this?

you do realise that at the point of the fault, whatever it was, he was doing near 440 feet (134meters) a second. Reaction times are so small that that there's very little anybody can do about it. lets just agree to disagree on this becasue its not going anywhere. Ive seen these cars making runs, ive heard accounts and even given you an example of one such account from a racer. you can either take that or leave it

The_Dark_Side · 24 Sep 2006 at 20:26

benneh said:
This is true. But I'm coming from the point of view that Hammond was insanely lucky to have come out of this alive. The odds of which are so slim that had there been the slightest variation he'd have broken his neck/bashed his skull in. His particular crash (the exact movement) of course could never be reproduced by doing the same thing over (due to the nature of chance) and therefore everything else is speculation. All i'm suggesting is that the supposed 'pro' drag car driver may well have done something different, and that something different would have probably killed him. Being as how insanely lucky hammond was.

i completely agree with this and it's the same point i've been making.

benneh said:
Possibly, but highly doubtfull. I'm just going on the fact that it was a blowout here, and there's nothing you can do about that. You can't anticipate it because by the time you hear something (the sidewall buckling/banging - which you wouldnt hear anyway due to helmet/headgear) and the car makes a sudden sideways jerk, at 300 MPH your direction has just changed, but the force and momentum is still there, willing the car forward.

you can't predict a blowout.no argument there.
although hearing it is irrelevant as you'd FEEL it instantly.

benneh said:
I was merely illustrating that he has at least a proven reaction time, and experience in fine adjustment whilst driving. (not that that makes any difference whatsoever at 300mph!).

i'm not disputing Hammonds reaction times, nor am i blaming him for the ACCIDENT one iota.
what i am saying is that he was inexperienced in a particularly dangerous type of vehicle and it's POSSIBLE that there were steps that an experienced driver would've taken that Hammond being a relative novice either didn't know or hand't rehearsed in his mind enough for them to become automatic.

PMKeates · 24 Sep 2006 at 20:29

I'll agree with The_Dark_Side here - surely you all must agree that under any situation that could ever require skill or ability, experience can help in difficult circumstances? I believe that is all he is trying to say!

The_Dark_Side · 24 Sep 2006 at 20:34

james.miller said:
your still actually going on about this?

is there a time limit on a debate?
we're discussing, we're being civilised and pretty respectful to each other.
where's the problem?

james.miller said:
you do realise that at the point of the fault, whatever it was, he was doing near 440 feet (134meters) a second. Reaction times are so small that that there's very little anybody can do about it. lets just agree to disagree on this becasue its not going anywhere. Ive seen these cars making runs, ive heard accounts and even given you an example of one such account from a racer. you can either take that or leave it

if he's covering so much ground per second then even a small difference in reactions would translate to a fair distance on the track.
as i said earlier i'm a layman here (well we all are but i'm the only one admitting it as almost everyone else seems to be an expert) so i'm asking questions and putting possibilities forward.
for example, did Hammond switch the engine off as soon as he felt the tyre go?
this may not even be a good thing to do, i don't know, but lets say it was then you can guarantee the experienced driver would be hitting the stop button the second he hit trouble.
RH is a tv presenter and in those same micro seconds that the pro would be thinking about shutting things down and trying to control it (maybe in vain granted) then Hammond being a novice was probably thinking OMG etc etc expletive deleted...and why wouldn't he? i'm sure i'd be the same as would anyone else unfamiliar with a jet car.

the vampire weighs 2200 pounds, kill the thrust and it will slow down...add that to the fact it was skidding sideways and it'd be decellerating even more.
it's perfectly feasible to say that if the engine had been cut then the accident may still have occured but resulting in a less destructive scenario.

The_Dark_Side · 24 Sep 2006 at 20:39

PMKeates said:
I'll agree with The_Dark_Side here - surely you all must agree that under any situation that could ever require skill or ability, experience can help in difficult circumstances? I believe that is all he is trying to say!

exactly.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7895031&postcount=544

i'm neither saying that Hammond could've avoided the wreck nor am i saying the Vampires regular driver could've...how could i? i'm not involved in that type of racing and as such i cannot say with 100% certainty either way, although it appears other members are more fluent with jet powered rail cars and their ability to tolerate a blow out than i.

to be honest i don't think Hammond has a place in what really is extreme motorsport.i like him, he's an oustanding presenter and comes across as a likeable guy but he's NOT a professional driver.they already have one on the staff and it's HIM that pushes the cars to the limit because he's the most qualified to do so.

james.miller · 24 Sep 2006 at 20:46

The_Dark_Side said:
is there a time limit on a debate?
we're discussing, we're being civilised and pretty respectful to each other.
where's the problem?

No but i see it as fruitless ive your going to go round in circles

RH is a tv presenter and in those same micro seconds that the pro would be thinking about shutting things down and trying to control it (maybe in vain granted) then Hammond being a novice was probably thinking OMG etc etc expletive deleted...and why wouldn't he? i'm sure i'd be the same as would anyone else unfamiliar with a jet car.

Correction, he's a tv presenter with an MSA racing licence. what's all this tosh about not being a professional driver?

the vampire weighs 2200 pounds, kill the thrust and it will slow down...add that to the fact it was skidding sideways and it'd be decellerating even more.
it's perfectly feasible to say that if the engine had been cut then the accident may still have occured but resulting in a less destructive scenario.

thats assuming he didnt cut the engine. The parachuts were released which would suggest the engines surely were cut. Now i dont know wehter its a fully automated process, but release the 'chutes first then cut the engines? yeah sure if you want to burn the 'chutes alive meaning you have no way of stopping other than hitting something or rolling it.

The_Dark_Side · 24 Sep 2006 at 20:55

james.miller said:
No but i see it as fruitless ive your going to go round in circles.

i'm the one with an open mind here.
others seem to be so sure of their opinion without any actual experience or working knowledge to back it up.
hence i've repeated some of my points.

james.miller said:
Correction, he's a tv presenter with an MSA racing licence. what's all this tosh about not being a professional driver?

so have i.
i'm neither a TV presenter, nor a professional racing driver either.
and i'm as familiar with jet engines, jet cars or rail type dragsters as Hammond was in the few days before he had his accident.
he has an MSA.
and?
almost everyone in here has a full car license, does that mean you're saying we're all blessed with almost equal levels of ability or skill?
no, of course you're not.
having an MSA says absolutely zero about your ability.
if RH, May or Clarkson were professional drivers then the stig would be redundant.

james.miller said:
thats assuming he didnt cut the engine. The parachuts were released which would suggest the engines surely were cut. Now i dont know wehter its a fully automated process, but release the 'chutes first then cut the engines? yeah sure if you want to burn the 'chutes alive meaning you have no way of stopping other than hitting something or rolling it.

correction, i'm not assuming anything.
re read my post.
if he cut the engines and that is indeed the correct procedure he'd been taught to do in problem situations then i'd say it's basic common sense that someone more experienced with him would've shut them down earlier.
fractions of a second earlier yes but then at this end of the motorsport wedge those fractions translate into major differences in speed and speed itself determines the severity of an accident.

james.miller · 24 Sep 2006 at 21:00

now dont take this as gospel, but here's a quote from a fire-fighter who was present at the scene:

A quote from Dave Ogden from Event Fire Services, present at the scene of the accident, as broadcast on Sky News that evening: "He was just doing the final run of the day - I don't know quite what happened - but the parachute deployed. There was quite a lot of smoke and the car veered off to the right and on to the grass, and it overturned several times and it came to a halt a couple of hundred yards in front of us."

the vampire weighs 2200 pounds, kill the thrust and it will slow down...add that to the fact it was skidding sideways and it'd be decellerating even more.
it's perfectly feasible to say that if the engine had been cut then the accident may still have occured but resulting in a less destructive scenario.

if that doesnt say "if the engine had been cut....it might not have been so bad" then what does it say? Certainly if you didnt mean that, you sure said it.

bbc footage:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7166143996175763956&q=richard+hammond+crash&hl=en

the guy talking mentions that there is one lever that operates both the parachute and the fuel cut-off -as i believed (wasn't sure, its been a while since ive seen the cockpit of a jetcar

). After releasing the 'chutes there isnt much to do but try and keep the car pointed straight. Im sure is MSA licence means he can point a car in the right direction.

I dont think anybody here doesnt an open mind. Its just about common sence really. Especially one thing im confused over is the chutes opening. Soem people are saying 1 chute opened, some are saying the chute opened. Now if only one of two chutes open then its very possibly that it was that that causes the car to veer off into the grass. I have no experiance of a 300mph car, as you have no doubt assumed, but i'm fairly certain it would be extremely difficult to steer the car under heavy breaking from one side doing 300mph. we need those details before we can say anything for sure, which is why i see this as pointless...for now.

The_Dark_Side · 25 Sep 2006 at 00:07

james.miller said:
if that doesnt say "if the engine had been cut....it might not have been so bad" then what does it say? Certainly if you didnt mean that, you sure said it.

i've said repeatedly that it's perfectly possible to assume that an experienced jet car driver would've reacted quicker and also performed the correct procedures.it stands to reason that someone who drives these things on a regular basis will know what to do in a crisis situation better than someone who has been driving the same car for a few days.

james.miller said:
Im sure is MSA licence means he can point a car in the right direction.

an MSA has no bearing at all here as the Vampire is only a car in the loosest sense of the word.no brakes, little or no suspension, no gearbox and the fact the power isn't even driving the wheels mean that unless you're fluent in jet cars you just don't have the knowledge required.
there is a reason why Richard Noble said in an interview that there are few people experienced in jet powered cars.
if this wasn't a relevant thing to say he wouldn't have said such a thing.

all i'm saying is that it's possible that had an experienced driver been in the driving seat then the accident may not have been as severe, it may have been an identical outcome or he may have been able to keep the car on the track.
most of the stunts are well executed and are very entertaining, but stuff like this should be left to the professionals.
as you posted earlier when even the pro's tell you how dangerous it is, it stands to reason someone who's a complete novice will be less able and as such more prone to things going wrong.

i'm going to have to respectfully bow out of this thread as to get my point across i feel it's going to begin to sound like i'm hammond-bashing and that's something i'm just not prepared to do...especially given the recent events.

hopefulkly we're looking at a FULL and not just a GOOD recovery.

smids · 25 Sep 2006 at 01:39

'The dark side' - you seem to repeatedly miss the point. Yes, an experienced driver might have known what to do - no, he wouldn't have time to implement what he knew. Simply, the car would already be rolling/crashing violently by the time his brain had processed the data from his eyes, effected a reponse which then had to travel along his nervous system along motor nerve cells and across synapses to create the movement required. There is no getting around this! This is a necessary timeframe which constrains everyone.

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html

Interesting read - apparently reaction times are faster in times of urgency, however, how long would it have taken him to work out something was wrong. Yes, an experience driver would have reacted quicker - would it have been enough? I very much doubt it. The average mooted response time is 1.5 seconds though as that article states, it varies a lot. 1.5 seconds x 90m/s (speed @ 200mph) = 135m travelled in the time to respond - and this assumes he knows what has happened and what to do...

Well, we know the parachute deployed so he did something, but clearly nothing could be done by this time as the car was already way off course and heading for the grass - I don't know about you, but I'm not sure if a steering wheel would help here, because turning a very small amount at that speed would really upset the centre of gravity, and considering the first human response is to full lock or thereabouts, it might have flipped - then again, I don't know the aero-dynamics of the car and how it responds/if it even has a steering wheel capable of turning more than 10 degrees.

Forgot to add, the average human response time is 0.75s - how this applies to this situation - an experienced driver would react in probably this time. So 0.75x90 = 67.5m. I still think that is enough of an angle change to not be able to do anything.

james.miller · 25 Sep 2006 at 10:05

The_Dark_Side said:
an MSA has no bearing at all here as the Vampire is only a car in the loosest sense of the word..

of course not. first he was 'only' a tv presenter now he's 'only' a tv presenter with a racing licence. you discredit everything said that goes against your own opinions.

no brakes, little or no suspension, no gearbox and the fact the power isn't even driving the wheels mean that unless you're fluent in jet cars you just don't have the knowledge required

what exactly is fluent in jetcar? its point and go for christ sake how complicated do you think it is?

there is a reason why Richard Noble said in an interview that there are few people experienced in jet powered cars.

yes, because few peopel have driven them, not because they are undrivable.

all i'm saying is that it's possible that had an experienced driver been in the driving seat then the accident may not have been as severe, it may have been an identical outcome or he may have been able to keep the car on the track.

yes youve said it over and over again. all we're saying is that its very likely the most experianced drive would have done exactly the same thing. Who hasn't got that open mind now?

most of the stunts are well executed and are very entertaining, but stuff like this should be left to the professionals.

He is a professional and everything is safty checked, by vampires own and and the BEEB. they are in a better positision to judge who can drive the car and who can't over you.

as you posted earlier when even the pro's tell you how dangerous it is, it stands to reason someone who's a complete novice will be less able and as such more prone to things going wrong.

well done for taking the quote out of context. That quote was about how little you can do and how short of a time you have to do it in. He knew ful well if somethign went wrong, you hold on tight. professional or not.

i'm going to have to respectfully bow out of this thread as to get my point across i feel it's going to begin to sound like i'm hammond-bashing and that's something i'm just not prepared to do...especially given the recent events.
hopefulkly we're looking at a FULL and not just a GOOD recovery.

thank you. You have to realise as ive already said, its useless you going round in circles untill they release the facts. besides, i dont think you even have an arguement anymore.

The_Dark_Side · 25 Sep 2006 at 10:24

smids said:
'The dark side' - you seem to repeatedly miss the point.

as I stated previously I'm trying to respectfully draw a line under this, however if you'd like to explain exactly how I can miss the point I'd appreciate it.what I've actually done is put forward all possible options while repeating that neither myself, nor anyone else without relevant knowledge/experience, can say for definite whether things would've been different had an experienced driver been driving.
as for reactions then its only fair to point out that micro seconds can make a huge difference.
if anyone remembers the Mig pilot that ejected at an airshow seconds before disaster....and wasn't one of the deciding factors that Neil Armstrong made the final selection for the Apollo programme due to his lightening reactions when a test went wrong and he ejected in the nick of time?

you freely admit reactions are quicker with experienced people yet you go on to say you doubt it'd be enough.how do you reach that opinion? is it an informed one or just speculation?I'm neither a neurobiologist nor a drag racer and as such I'm not qualified to state a definitive opinion either way, yet many others are 100 percent sure of theirs.
unless either of us are experienced in the relevant areas then our opinions are exactly that...opinions and not fact.
to the untrained eye it may appear to us to look an impossible situation, however to the pro's it MAY not be.

JoshSaville · 25 Sep 2006 at 10:53

laissez-faire said:
Just saw this as breaking news - very sad.

Can't find a link yet.

Sam

Especially sad as i know him personally. Seriously a top guy and i was so glad he was able to sit up in bed and share a joke.

Sav

smids · 25 Sep 2006 at 10:55

I said it wouldn't be enough based on a mathematical calculation on speed - which I'm sure I included. The difference of 70m vs 130m is big? Yes. Enough? I don't think so, given the photo of the tyre marks.

gord · 25 Sep 2006 at 11:21

I take the opinion that whoever was in that jetcar would have had the same thing done to them.

At such high speeds, with something unexpected happen, there is no way the brain could calculate what needs to be done fast enough. He was effectively a passenger on a rollercoaster ride.

Oakesy2001uk · 25 Sep 2006 at 11:26

gord said:
I take the opinion that whoever was in that jetcar would have had the same thing done to them.

At such high speeds, with something unexpected happen, there is no way the brain could calculate what needs to be done fast enough. He was effectively a passenger on a rollercoaster ride.

same. If it was a blowout or something going wrong, no-one was saving that!

benneh · 25 Sep 2006 at 11:39

Oakesy2001uk said:
same. If it was a blowout or something going wrong, no-one was saving that!

Exactly.

We should leave it there, being as we're right

.

The_Dark_Side · 25 Sep 2006 at 13:11

benneh said:
Exactly.

We should leave it there, being as we're right .

at least we've established a new precedent for the motors forum.

no relevant knowledge is necessary to have the correct opinion.should make future threads interesting to read hehe

JRS · 25 Sep 2006 at 15:24

The_Dark_Side said:
at least we've established a new precedent for the motors forum.

no relevant knowledge is necessary to have the correct opinion.should make future threads interesting to read hehe

I thought it had been that way for a while now.....

Von Smallhausen · 25 Sep 2006 at 18:37

EDIT :ignore