The 1995 race Gachot & Pacific were on fire!

The place for anything and everything else to do with F1 history, different forms of motorsport, and all other randomness
Post Reply
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

The 1995 race Gachot & Pacific were on fire!

Post by ibsey »

From Motorsport magazine June 1995

Chills and spills
Nobody who was watching is likely to forget the afternoon of July 31 1994, when motor racing's refuelling regulations underwent spectacular trial in front of a multi-million TV jury. That nobody suffered serious long-term injuries when Jos Verstappen's Benetton was consumed by a fireball in the Hockenheim pit lane was as miraculous as it was merciful, and a tribute to the quality of contemporary safety equipment.

It was not, however, a glowing tribute to the Formula One regulations. To date, it has been the only accident of its kind. Yet it was originally said to be an impossibility.

Walking around a modern Formula One paddock, racing drivers are not immediately obvious to the uninitiated. Pit crews, engineers and even TV journalists will be fully kitted out in fireproof overalls, just in case something as 'impossible' as Hockenheim should happen again. In Barcelona, one of Minardi's overalled engineers was badgered by an over-eager, and oblivious, fan to pose with him in a photograph...

Later in the afternoon, the reason why entire teams are now sporting three-layer Nomex was again apparent. As it sped down the pit lane, Bertrand Gachot's Pacific PRO2 left behind it a trail of fuel, which eventually splashed onto its exhaust and ignited.

"We weren't aware of the problem straight away," explains Pacific managing director Keith Wiggins. "We released the refuelling nozzle, and the guy with the jack let Bertrand go. All he said was that, as the car accelerated, he saw a gush of fuel come back out onto the side of the car. The refuelling valve hadn't closed instantly when it should have done, and under acceleration the petrol was allowed to spill out of the back. We didn't see that until he got to the end of the pit lane, by which stage the fuel had worked its way into everywhere it was going to go. We saw a little bit of flame, and we told him to stop. Luckily it didn't get any worse."

Momentary though the conflagration may have been, it has prompted uneasy talk about the consequences of an equipment failure during refuelling.

What can the teams do about it?

"Nothing," says Wiggins. "That's the annoying thing. It was a piece of equipment over which we have no control, yet it tends to reflect on the team. Last year, comments were made that if there was a problem it would be with one of the smaller teams, and as it turned out it was the team that made the comment that had the problem!

"It's still not a particularly nice thing to happen."

When building its car with the refuelling regulations in mind, Pacific sailed closer to the wind than most, utilising a 90-litre fuel tank, as opposed to the 120/130-litre reservoirs preferred by most other teams. During an average 190-mile race, a Cosworth ED V8 is likely to consume around 190 litres of fuel, which dictates that the team has to stop at least twice.

So was Wiggins in favour of the regulations?

"No, not really. We built the car to the existing rules to try and get an advantage, which we're perhaps not making the best of at the moment, but you do that because the rules are there. You've got to do it. In principle, I've never been very keen on it, because every time you have a pit stop you always keep your fingers crossed and hope that everything goes OK. When you're talking about fuel under pressure, it's a problem. Putting fuel in a hot racing car during a race is obviously very dangerous. It can be as safe as anything can be technically, but it's a simple fact of life that there is a greater risk if you are doing it rather than not doing it. Obviously it should never happen. The concensus is that there was a spring inside the valve which turned and caused it to jam. We were assured that it's impossible for it to happen, but obviously something made it stick."

At the time of the incident, Gachot was carrying about 75 litres of fuel, a three-quarter load. A blessing? Not necessarily.

"The filters are all vented," explains Wiggins, "so I don't think a full tank would have made much difference. Maybe under acceleration a bit more would have come out, but it wouldn't have been another Hockenheim. The difference there was that the fuel sprayed out. This one didn't spray fuel; it just came out under the pressure of the car's acceleration."

A different situation, and, ultimately, a harmless one. There were no personnel engulfed within a spectacular televised fireball. The incident did not make news headlines.

It did, however, start to make people feel a little nervous.

"There's not much we can do about it," concludes Wiggins. "I always hoped they'd get rid of refuelling. It's just another thing to go wrong. I'm not sure how spectacular pit stops are on telly. They only ever show the top three or four doing it. Whether or not people are bored with that I don't know. We all accept that pit stops create more changes and that perhaps that makes it more interesting, but if they keep the tyre rules as they are people will be pitting anyway. As it stands, we can't run a race without refuelling. Those are the rules; that's what we designed. We've got to accept it."

The flash fire behind the Pacific might have been no big deal; the fact that the equipment has still been proved fallible, however, is.


Why didn't this incident cause more of a uproar over refuelling like Hockenheim 1994? Was it because no-body cared it happened to Pacific (a backmarker team). Or because it wasn't as spectacular as the Verstappen fire, the press/people weren't interested?

Any thoughts welcome
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
Butterfox
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6192
Joined: 30 Nov 2009, 19:45
Location: Stupid, sexy Flanders.

Re: The 1995 race Gachot & Pacific were on fire!

Post by Butterfox »

Well i guess the general audience and press kinda expected teams like Pacific to sometimes be a bit amateurish, whilst they expect big teams like Benetton to be ultra-professional and flawless.
Even if this wasn't Pacifics fault, it would have been considered an amateur mistake by the non-experts.
I don't know what i want and i want it now!
User avatar
Nuppiz
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 5922
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 12:10
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

Re: The 1995 race Gachot & Pacific were on fire!

Post by Nuppiz »

Sounds like it was nowhere near the magnitude of Hockenheim 1994. Probably even far less than Brazil 2009. And because it happened to a backmarker team during a pitstop which (probably) wasn't shown on TV, only the people on the pitlane actually saw it. All in all it was probably considered to be such a minor incident that it was hardly even worth mentioning.
Eurosport broadcast for the 1990 Mexican GP prequalifying:
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
User avatar
ibsey
Posts: 1485
Joined: 12 Jan 2010, 00:25

Re: The 1995 race Gachot & Pacific were on fire!

Post by ibsey »

I've researched this a bit more for my upcoming book and here is Keith Wiggins, explaining the circumstances. “As the hose came off, the valve on the car didn’t fully return and as soon as he left the pits, fuel jumped back out on to the bodywork. When we brought the car back, the valve had returned, but we don’t know when it did that. We’ve got the Intertechinque people looking into it.” Wiggins considered it “fortunate” their fuel tank was only around 75% full, had it been brimmed more would have leaked out. Moreover, it was a cooler day than Hockenheim 1994, and their car had been moving when the fuel ignited thus helping to combat the blaze, hence why this wasn’t as catastrophic as Benetton’s incident.

I think your right in that it happened to a backmarker team so the majority of the public / press didn't care.
Coming January 2019 a new F1 book revisiting 1994.


Pre order it here; www.performancepublishing.co.uk/1994-th ... eason.html


The book's website; www.1994f1.com/
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: The 1995 race Gachot & Pacific were on fire!

Post by mario »

ibsey wrote:I've researched this a bit more for my upcoming book and here is Keith Wiggins, explaining the circumstances. “As the hose came off, the valve on the car didn’t fully return and as soon as he left the pits, fuel jumped back out on to the bodywork. When we brought the car back, the valve had returned, but we don’t know when it did that. We’ve got the Intertechinque people looking into it.” Wiggins considered it “fortunate” their fuel tank was only around 75% full, had it been brimmed more would have leaked out. Moreover, it was a cooler day than Hockenheim 1994, and their car had been moving when the fuel ignited thus helping to combat the blaze, hence why this wasn’t as catastrophic as Benetton’s incident.

I think your right in that it happened to a backmarker team so the majority of the public / press didn't care.

I would agree with the comments of other posters in this thread that, because it involved a small team that was rarely in the public spotlight, most probably would have been oblivious to the event - especially if it wasn't caught on camera in the way that the Benetton pit fire was.

Furthermore, since the consequences of that fire were much smaller, it sounds as if most observers probably did not pay much attention - there is, quite often, a tendency for people to brush off or trivialise near misses, and this probably would have been brushed off in a similar manner because nothing serious happened.

As This notes, with Pacific probably being viewed, perhaps harshly, as a more amateurish affair, because the consequences were not significant, it probably would be easier for people to dismiss it as a clumsy mistake and to overlook it as just another example of "those clumsy amateurs at the back of the grid".
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
Post Reply