Formula 1, 2020

[Hobby]

According to this it's due to weight gains rather than "slipperiness" through the air, it seems that matt paint weighs less! Something to think about next time you repaint your HST or Eurostar!

 

https://www.formula1.com/en/video/2020/11/2020_Bahrain_Grand_Prix__Grosjean_escapes_huge_crash_and_fire_at_race_start.html

[Sophia NSE]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

All the IndyCar banked tracks now have Safer Barriers, which are designed to a different, maybe better, standard from those for F1, with extruded closed-cell polystyrene infills behind the steel. They can't help when a car is launched above them (as in the accident that killed Dan Wheldon) but do take some of the sting out of impacting the barrier. 

That's very true and yesterday's accident was very reminiscent of an Indy car style accident. Dare I say that Indy car drivers have more skill that F1 drivers?

*Ducks for cover*

[PaulRhB]

46 minutes ago, Sophia NSE said:

That's very true and yesterday's accident was very reminiscent of an Indy car style accident. Dare I say that Indy car drivers have more skill that F1 drivers?

*Ducks for cover*

Are you saying you judge their skill by how they crash then?  

 

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, Sophia NSE said:

That's very true and yesterday's accident was very reminiscent of an Indy car style accident. Dare I say that Indy car drivers have more skill that F1 drivers?

*Ducks for cover*

 

They certainly do in nose-to-tail driving!

 

You can get the same sensation when there's an Audi or BMW right on your bumper on a narrow windy B road...

 

[mozzer models]

3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

According to the BBC report by Andrew Benson the car recorded a peak load of 53G, that’s pretty incredible to walk out of without breaking some bones! 
I’m not sure a racing driver is going to walk away completely and far more seriously injured ones have raced again. Billy Monger’s may not have been so spectacular to look at but he was ultimately closer to death from injuries sustained, I don’t think they are wired like us  

But which 1/2 of the car did the 53g it could have been the back half after it left the safety sell

[black and decker boy]

Being involved in building crash barriers in the UK road network, they have specific standards for containment for set speeds and angles of impact. The armco used on the track did not feature anything special in terms of anchorages (the forkilft lifted in out of the ground) so would be containment for a side angle collision not a head on impact. At that point of the track, the risk of collision would no doubt have been seen as low.

 

With a square on impact such as this, even our normal motorway barriers would not retain a high energy impact (hence why you occasionally get HGVs dangling over the edge).

 

I think Bahrain circuit need to look at the whole design of that section of service roads and the protective walls and move the intersection of service roads back 5m and then reduce the angle of the crash barrier relative to the track. A car hitting at an angle will be contained and slowed by the barrier.

[PaulRhB]

17 minutes ago, mozzer models said:

But which 1/2 of the car did the 53g it could have been the back half after it left the safety 

 

 

As it appears from the video it was the sudden stop of the cockpit that caused the split as it turned and the rear came to rest further along it would suggest the front half decelerated more rapidly as the rear had more distance to absorb the momentum. 

You can see the front impact first here in the aerial shot 

https://youtu.be/ToxQAn5iM7Q

 

 

Edited November 30, 2020 by PaulRhB

[Sophia NSE]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

Are you saying you judge their skill by how they crash then?  

 

Haha no, but they compete on 3 different kinds of track

[Sophia NSE]

19 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

They certainly do in nose-to-tail driving!

 

You can get the same sensation when there's an Audi or BMW right on your bumper on a narrow windy B road...

 

Not quite the same as 230mph at Indianapolis 

[57xx]

 

Holy cow, only just caught up on the highlights. Grosjean is a very very lucky man. I wasn't huge fan of the halo when it came in, but boy did it do it's job well! Don't think he would have faired as well with Red Bull's windscreen design. Can't remember the last time I've seen a fire in F1 after they introduced the fuel bladders, that is quite some impact.

 

6 hours ago, EddieB said:

The question is whether there was complete structural integrity in the Armco to begin with.  Apparently there are cut-outs in some sections for the placement of cameras, which could compromise the whole section.  There needs to be a full investigation as it should have held and been able to absorb much of the energy.  Certainly not to have sliced the car in two.

 

It didn't slice the car in two, it snapped in half at the engine mounts as the front end embedded itself in the armco with the rear end continuing trying to pivot the car around.

 

5 hours ago, LNERandBR said:

To some extent, the car splitting into two saved Roman. There will have been a lot of energy involved in the engine and rear ripping away, just think if that energy had gone somewhere else.

 

Yes there was a big fireball, but all the oil and combustibles in the engine were ejected from the crash site.

 

The fuel cell area was still behind the driver's cockpit, that's why it got engulfed in flames. Guessing the armco slice through the fuel bladder causing the contents to spill everywhere. They are extremely well designed to not split or get punctured (kevlar reinforced rubber) in the event of an accident, but having armco slicing it open was probably not on the list of failure modes.

 

2 hours ago, kipford said:

Hobby sorry to disagree  with you on it being a head on impact. He hit at an angle of about 30 degrees as shown by the skid marks on the screen shot and the in from Kyvat. At that angle he should deflected off not gone through it which indicates as both of us suggested it was either a failure of the barrier or due to a gap in it. Interesting though this screen shot from Hamilton's pole lap at the crash site suggests no opening in the barrier. We shall wait and see. 

 

 

 

 

The angle of the skid marks may be roughly 30* but it's very clear the car itself impacted the barrier at a greater angle, it's not travelling in a straight line at 30* to the barrier. The skid marks show it is sliding at an ever increasing angle (right hand mark is the front right wheel, 2 middle tracks the front left and rear right and the left track is the left rear and distance between the tracks increasing). The angle of impact will have increased from the snapshot shown from Kyvat's car.

[PaulRhB]

2 minutes ago, Sophia NSE said:

Haha no, but they compete on 3 different kinds of track

You could say F1 compete on several different types of track too, just not Ovals currently and I’m not counting next week as a true oval  

[Sophia NSE]

It would be interesting to see an F1 car on an oval...

[RJS1977]

2 minutes ago, Sophia NSE said:

It would be interesting to see an F1 car on an oval...

 

They did half an oval at Indianapolis in the 2000s.

 

Going further back, in the 1950s, Monza included a banked oval section.

[LNERandBR]

Just now, Sophia NSE said:

It would be interesting to see an F1 car on an oval...

 

Not really, they'd just be flat out all the time. Though the dirty air would cause problems for following cars.

 

If your going on bravery then I'd say Rally Drivers have the best bravery. 100+ on dirt between trees and boulders takes some commitment to know the car is going to find some grip and not spit you off into the undergrowth.

[RJS1977]

8 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

It didn't slice the car in two, it snapped in half at the engine mounts as the front end embedded itself in the armco with the rear end continuing trying to pivot the car around.

 

 

Thanks for this explanation. I'd assumed that the top rail of the Armco had made contact with the airbox, causing the rear half of the car to decelerate much faster than the front.

[Sophia NSE]

10 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

They did half an oval at Indianapolis in the 2000s.

 

Going further back, in the 1950s, Monza included a banked oval section.

The Indy 500 was part of the F1 calendar in the 50s

[RJS1977]

10 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

You could say F1 compete on several different types of track too, just not Ovals currently and I’m not counting next week as a true oval  

 

Out of interest, was the accident on the part of the circuit that's being used next week?

 

Either way, I'd say the barriers on next week's circuit need careful examination before the race can take place - and until it can be identified why the barrier failed, those doing the examinations won't know what to look for.

 

Personally, with the Championships already decided, only two races to go, and an unknown risk factor, I'd question whether next week and possibly Abu Dhabi should go ahead at all. 

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

I'm not sure I agree with that analysis, someone mentioned earlier that armco is designed to deflect a vehicle that hits it at an angle. That isn't what happened as he hit it virtually head on. With that sort of impact it will seek out the weakest parts which would seem to have been the joints between the layers. In fact the armco doesn't appear to have broken but deformed.

 

I think the main thing they need to consider is how they design the gaps, that one looks like the armco was pushed towards the track at an angle to allow for the gap. Perhaps narrowing the run off area in this way isn't the right way.?

It's interesting, and illuminating, to read what Armco have to say about their own barriers.  Their only 'claim' about the purpose of their barriers is that they are to stop vehicles going where you don't want them to go - nothing about other mitigation in the event of a collision with the barrier apart from that very simple statement.  They go on to say  -

 

[Sophia NSE]

12 minutes ago, LNERandBR said:

 

Not really, they'd just be flat out all the time. Though the dirty air would cause problems for following cars.

 

If your going on bravery then I'd say Rally Drivers have the best bravery. 100+ on dirt between trees and boulders takes some commitment to know the car is going to find some grip and not spit you off into the undergrowth.

You're not wrong there!

[RJS1977]

Just now, Sophia NSE said:

The Indy 500 was part of the F1 calendar in the 50s

 

It was part of the World Championship, but as the technical regulations differed, drivers were not allowed to use F1 cars. Consequently few F1 drivers actually competed in the race.

[57xx]

15 minutes ago, LNERandBR said:

 

If your going on bravery then I'd say Rally Drivers have the best bravery. 100+ on dirt between trees and boulders takes some commitment to know the car is going to find some grip and not spit you off into the undergrowth.

 

Or in to a deep ravine...

[LNERandBR]

3 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

Or in to a deep ravine...

 

A bit like this one you mean? 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2020 by LNERandBR

[Andrew P]

I drove on the Rockingham Oval and we were told the Cars had the suspension set up differently each side to account for not just the angle, but the upward thrust of the Car towards the wall. It's really is a strange sensation at over 100 mph and you feel the Car wanting to climb the wall but your not actually pulling down with your left hand to compensate. Also the suspension movement each side is different as is the ride height.

Edited November 30, 2020 by Andrew P

[Joseph_Pestell]

14 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

It's interesting, and illuminating, to read what Armco have to say about their own barriers.  Their only 'claim' about the purpose of their barriers is that they are to stop vehicles going where you don't want them to go - nothing about other mitigation in the event of a collision with the barrier apart from that very simple statement.  They go on to say  -

 

 

They are good as a safety protection for cars. Dreadful for motorbikes.

[57xx]

12 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Thanks for this explanation. I'd assumed that the top rail of the Armco had made contact with the airbox, causing the rear half of the car to decelerate much faster than the front.

 

When you look at the fact the survival cell was rotated around and also facing the wrong way, I did wonder whether it could have been side impact that ripped it off, but both rear wheels are still attached, so the left side of the rear end did not impact the barrier.