Well for my part I can only say this;
As part of my apprenticeship I had to study crash analysis, and we were at college alongside those sent from the local police forces. The one thing that always struck me is, having been shown the end results and asked to speculate on what we thought had happened, invariably, when shown the footage, we were usually miles away from what had actually happened, such are the dynamics of an accident.
When I worked in F1, crash analysis took up a lot less of my time, but I did have extra data, such as telemetry from the cars, sometimes on board footage, sometimes the driver noted certain behaviour in the car, and sometimes we actually caught the whole thing on film, but still things would rarely match 100%!
In the writing of Leap into Legend I was lacking physical evidence, K7 being 147 feet down in Coniston, although I did have the odd verbal report of the state of the wreck from divers, so I had to do what most "witnesses" do when reporting on crashes, assume/speculate/guess the gaps to try and get a fluid timeline of events. I say this as many many times when interviewing a witness, you ask, "so what happened", and the reply comes " well I heard this noise as the car hit the wall" which actally means they didn't see the accident, the sound of it attracted their attention to it, they saw the aftermath, and their brain filled in the gaps.
With K7 there is a lot of evidence, but I still don't think we'll all agree on everything!! It is however a fascinating science.
Last edited by f1steveuk
on Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steve Holter, UK and France, and sometimes reality....................