TBK-Light.com

Motorsport videos and chat.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:42 pm

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:15 am 
Offline
Silver Member
Silver Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:05 am
Posts: 1755
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 91 times
It seems like it will happen as I suspected - they will develop a canopy on a quick turnaround and deal with any problems that arise from that as they occur.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:03 am 
Offline
German Touring Car Series #1 Fan
German Touring Car Series #1 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 4957
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 202 times
First off, I bought this month's Motor Sport magazine last week. There's an editorial in there by Nigel Roebuck written at the time of Bianchi's death on whether or not F1 is too safe. It's a good read regardless of your position on this - I don't believe it reflects any worse even after Wilson's death. In particular it's quite surprising to see Sir Jackie Stewart actually saying F1's too safe now, which should be food for thought for those citing his example as a reason for having canopies

Scotty wrote:
- Test done by the FIA on closed cockpits are now significantly obsolete, as material technology has gone significantly beyond what they did in 2010. Plus, it was a half arsed effort. Not scientifically possible? That's horseshit. If the teams can develop complex hybrid power units, they can string a few bits of carbon fibre together to make a cockpit.


The material's got very little to do with it - they ditched the full canopy because it increased the risk of debris flying into the crowd and killing spectators, and the front roll-hoop was directly in the line of sight for a driver making accidents more likely (and as far as I can tell, that's still a problem with the Mercedes proposal, but to a lesser extent). Things may have moved on but the concepts are still fundamentally flawed because they are still based around the same design principles - the FIA's research didn't need to be more than "half arsed" (and I dispute that it was) because the flaws were clear as day

That's not an excuse to not bother doing any more research, obviously, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be a way of covering all the bases while avoiding the numerous flaws that have been pointed out. If open wheel cars get some kind of protection after this, it'll be because those flaws are being ignored - a kneejerk reaction

Scotty wrote:
- Closed cockpits would be safer. This whole bullshit argument of drivers being trapped in a car on fire, the last driver to die from being trapped in his car when it caught fire happened in F1 was in 1982, 33 years ago, and I have a feeling the fire didn't kill him anyway. So you go back to Williamson, which happened what, 41 years ago? He only died because no fire marshalls turned up.


But you're comparing hypothetical situations - there were no deaths in a time when there no canopies, but that doesn't necessarily mean the drivers that survived fires would still have survived if it was much harder to get out of the car. And fires are unlikely? Well, when was the last time before Wilson's accident that someone had been killed by debris that wasn't a wheel? I can't think of an example of it happening before. A few weeks ago it would have been virtually inconceivable to us that a nose cone could kill a driver. Even the issues of wheels have largely been solved by the stronger teathers

Fire is perfectly conceivable, because it happens. We've seen it happen, at Indy and in F1 in recent times. The extra protection is no guarantee, just like the teathers

At the end of the day, to act on the one-in-a-million chance of drivers being struck on the head while ignoring the one-in-a-million chance of drivers being trapped in a burning car is surely just hypocritical and enormously complacent. The FIA are already well aware of this - that's why full canopies won't happen. If anything happens, it'll be a partial covering, and yet to me that's daft because it doesn't solve the problem and adds extra complications

Scotty wrote:
- "Debris field being a problem" the fuck? A canopy would be no bigger than the size of a rear wing or nose cone, and would be integrated into the body shell anyway for it to work, it woudn't fall off or apart, if it has, there is a bigger problem than debris fields.


That's not what I was saying - to put it more directly, if we want to stop stuff falling off cars and hitting drivers, why not stop the stuff falling off the cars in the first place? Or if it has to come off to disperse energy, why not try to make sure it comes off in a certain way not to pose as much of a risk to those in the firing line? Surely that's safer for everyone at a circuit, not just drivers. Reading around various debates and articles, the role of spectators and marshals is being totally overlooked all the time. If you deflect car parts, they have to go somewhere, and onlookers don't have the same level as protection as drivers

Are we saying that a driver's life is worth more than a spectator's or a marshal's? They're all people at the end of the day - they all have families just the same as Justin Wilson. To me it's all the more shocking for a family to hear that someone didn't come home from a race when they weren't even driving a car. And even if you put it into financial terms, if a spectator was to be killed at an F1 event today, the lawsuits would be enormous. If several spectators were killed, it would probably bring the sport down. Surely F1 can't risk that

Scotty wrote:
Dan Wheldon's head hit a fence pole didn't it? If it was a closed cockpit, the roof would have taken the brunt of the force. Not saying he could have survived it, he did go head first into a fence at 220mph, but it would have given him more of a chance. We were lucky we didn't see him decapitated that day, how many people would still be watching motorsport if they saw that happen? How many mothers would let their sons compete huh? A closed cockpit would have made a big difference. Jules Bianchi would have had a much better chance. So would Senna, Surtees, Wilson and so many more who've been seriously injured too.


The FIA categorically confirmed during the investigation that a canopy would have made no difference for Bianchi. His injuries came from the deceleration forces. The car would still have stopped at the same rate, and any canopy or protection would have to be engineered to withstand the same level of force as the rear roll-hoop but not necessarily beyond it, so it would've been destroyed in Bianchi's accident, and therefore Wheldon's as well

The only incidents that a canopy or protection would definitely prevent would be the wheel and debris strikes - in terms of fatalities, the only significant ones would've been Mike Spence (1968), Markus Hottinger (1980), possibly Senna (1994), Surtees (2009) and Wilson (2015). There may have been one or two others buried deep within history, but that's just about it - you're talking about a handful of fatalities over 50 years, and nearly all of them were wheels, which now shouldn't come off except in extreme circumstances anyway

The only reason we're talking about this is because a few years ago there were 2 incidents in quick succession, both of which should have been preventable by the features that were already on the cars - the spring that hit Massa should never have come off Rubens' car, and the wheel teathers on Jack Clarke's F2 car should not have failed like that. Then we had one a couple of weeks ago which was an equally absurd mix of circumstances. It just sheer dumb luck that incidents that have previously been a once-a-decade occurrence happened relatively close together. Added to that, people have lumped in some other incidents (Wheldon, De Villota, Bianchi) while providing no evidence that the drivers in question would've survived

Some journalists went around the F1 drivers after Bianchi's accident prodding them about canopies, which was fucking low and irresponsible considering the drivers were all emotional and there was no evidence at the time that it would have made any difference. It's created myths which are evidently still floating around now. The same journalists are whipping up a frenzy about this after Wilson's accident. Their only interest is in hits and magazine sales, and canopy stories make good copy because safety is an emotive subject. The media are entirely responsible for fuelling this bandwagon, and their position is not neutral - they have an agenda, and it's not driver safety

In the debates I've seen, pro-canopy/protection people have tried to characterise anti-canopy/protection people as irrational. But I think that's grossly unfair - we're talking about this because of irrational, emotional reactions to someone's death (which is entirely understandable), and there are plenty of rational reasons being put forward about why a full canopy would certainly be a bad idea and why other levels of protection are also fundamentally flawed. This isn't about tradition - it's about what works and what doesn't, and I don't see anything out there at the moment that will definitely make open wheel racing cars safer


Top
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:42 am 
Offline
The Finnish Paul Page
The Finnish Paul Page
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:07 pm
Posts: 6308
Location: Racing is in my blood
Has thanked: 725 times
Been thanked: 563 times
Very good post, James!

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."


Top
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:52 am 
Offline
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:38 pm
Posts: 13608
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 690 times
Well said, James.
Everyone must put their emotions aside, especially those who are running the sports. A rational approach involving careful risk analysis and proper testing is required. First and foremost: there is no hurry for implementation. There's no evidence that the probability of being hit by debris has increased. Like all improbable events of life (heart-attack, car/plane accident, housefire, lottery win), there may be many occurrence in short period of time, or only one per 50 years. Still, the risk is just as low as before Surtees' accident in 2009 when the whole debate of canopies hadn't even started.
So, research and calculations should take as long as needed. The results will eventually tell whether something radical should be done.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:29 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:22 pm
Posts: 93117
Location: New ribs please...
Has thanked: 396 times
Been thanked: 1334 times
But it's not just the objects hitting the head that are a danger, there's also all the shards that fly about in an accident. Just ask Vettel. And that crash at Indy this year, there was debris everywhere.

And of course we've had many times another car come close to the head of another driver.

Open cockpit cars days are numbered.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:16 pm 
Offline
German Touring Car Series #1 Fan
German Touring Car Series #1 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 4957
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 202 times
Gaara wrote:
But it's not just the objects hitting the head that are a danger, there's also all the shards that fly about in an accident. Just ask Vettel. And that crash at Indy this year, there was debris everywhere.

And of course we've had many times another car come close to the head of another driver.


But near-misses are irrelevant. If it nearly happened, that means it didn't. You can "what if" yourself into the ground if you take that approach

There's a far bigger danger out there that has been conveniently buried by this issue. 12 years ago Tony Renna died because his car got airborne at high speed. And yet the problem still exists - cars still get airborne on a regular basis, and not just in IndyCar, with two drivers killed since 2000 and several drivers and fans suffering serious injuries. A genuine "what if" is to consider what the consequences would have been had that accident happened in the Indy 500 and not a private test session where no one was filming and no one was sat in the grandstands - it would almost certainly have been the end of open wheel oval racing

So why is one issue, which is far more likely to rear its head and has probably caused a lot more pain and suffering already, being brushed under the carpet while the other is a "major issue"?


Top
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:51 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:38 pm
Posts: 13608
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 690 times
There are countless amount of other hazards that we can come up with. And also - as a joke - knee-jerk reactions to them.
- A wheel comes loose during a pit stop and kills a team boss -> changing tires banned
- Car suffers a brake failure while pitting and kills mechanics -> pitting during the race is forbidden
- Pole sitter stalls and one car hits the rear and other t-bones the car killing the driver -> standing starts are banned
- Two cars touch wheels and a car flips into the catch fence sending debris into the crowd killing several spectators -> mandatory rear wheel guard closures
- Fatal accident(s) or two at Monaco -> no more racing at Monaco
- Fatal accident(s) at Eau Rouge -> corner becomes a straight
- Fatal accident(s) due to the poor visibility in rain -> only dry racing allowed
- Closed-cockpit F1 flips over and catch fire killing the driver despite firefighters efforts -> ??

The ugly fact is that all of this are prone to happen as the years go by, i.e. allowing more opportunities for something to happen.
But as we think the actual chances are low, we are willing accept the risks.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:17 pm 
Offline
Silver Member
Silver Member

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 1580
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Very True words there JJ


Top
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:53 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:21 pm
Posts: 482
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 28 times
Was thinking about Gilles crash, then about the actual structure strenght pre-monocoque. Would just have desintegrated anyway I fear.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:22 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:56 am
Posts: 11293
Location: Everything is great...
Has thanked: 4975 times
Been thanked: 290 times
JJ wrote:
- Two cars touch wheels and a car flips into the catch fence sending debris into the crowd killing several spectators ->


Spectators are banned imo.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:46 pm 
Offline
Founder of the Yaytree
Founder of the Yaytree
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 28000
Location: Birmingham, UK (Not near DEGA :( )
Has thanked: 1281 times
Been thanked: 1862 times
James B wrote:
Gaara wrote:
But it's not just the objects hitting the head that are a danger, there's also all the shards that fly about in an accident. Just ask Vettel. And that crash at Indy this year, there was debris everywhere.

And of course we've had many times another car come close to the head of another driver.


But near-misses are irrelevant. If it nearly happened, that means it didn't. You can "what if" yourself into the ground if you take that approach

There's a far bigger danger out there that has been conveniently buried by this issue. 12 years ago Tony Renna died because his car got airborne at high speed. And yet the problem still exists - cars still get airborne on a regular basis, and not just in IndyCar, with two drivers killed since 2000 and several drivers and fans suffering serious injuries. A genuine "what if" is to consider what the consequences would have been had that accident happened in the Indy 500 and not a private test session where no one was filming and no one was sat in the grandstands - it would almost certainly have been the end of open wheel oval racing

So why is one issue, which is far more likely to rear its head and has probably caused a lot more pain and suffering already, being brushed under the carpet while the other is a "major issue"?


This is a fairly open secret I'm indycar now, Lord knows anyone who has read my posts on here over the years knows all about it

Indycar, in a quest for better racing, mandate higher downforce levels than the teams would like to run so to compensate the mechanics run them with the nose raised to counter the effects of the giant rear wing.
This was a terrible problem with the irl era chasis, was minimised with the dw12 and now the aero kits have brought with them more top side aero downforce which has brought the problem up once again, see indy for a demonstration.

The question really is why a nose cone was that heavy in the first place. You cant imagine f1 noses causing that much of an issue if they were struck by the driver at any speed, they're so light, so if the current rumour in the indycar paddock that extra weight was used to weigh down the nose of the car as a last minute fix for airbourne issues it could land indycar in a lot of trouble.

Of course this has been known to engineers since the first irl cars started taking off over 12 years ago so I guess they're good at keeping secrets over there

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley


Top
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:50 am 
Offline
The Finnish Paul Page
The Finnish Paul Page
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:07 pm
Posts: 6308
Location: Racing is in my blood
Has thanked: 725 times
Been thanked: 563 times
codename_47 wrote:
The question really is why a nose cone was that heavy in the first place. You cant imagine f1 noses causing that much of an issue if they were struck by the driver at any speed, they're so light, so if the current rumour in the indycar paddock that extra weight was used to weigh down the nose of the car as a last minute fix for airbourne issues it could land indycar in a lot of trouble.


Where did you get that rumor? I'd like to know some details if you have more about that extra weight.

Anyway, the nose cone is a crash structure and the weight comes from there. I'm pretty sure that F1 nose is also weighting more than a kilogram. Remember that Massa was seriously injured by 0,2kg spring at around 200km/h speed. Wilson was doing something around 300 and the nose, even though had it been just about that kilogram weight, the impact force would be many times higher.

_________________
"Indy doesn't give you a second chance. You have to earn it."


Top
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:48 am 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:56 pm
Posts: 4867
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 99 times
The canopies would also need to be designed so that they don't deflect debris to the crowd.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:53 am 
Offline
2011 TBK-Light Best Looking Member award winner
2011 TBK-Light Best Looking Member award winner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 11707
Location: 24 hours from Le Mans
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 542 times
Bleu wrote:
The canopies would also need to be designed so that they don't deflect debris to the crowd.


Because that is such a big problem elsewhere where cars with roofs race...?

Most of these problems don't exist, because, you know:

Image


Top
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:49 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member

Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 11:56 pm
Posts: 59
The nosecone weighed approximately 7lbs, and the "weight distribution issue" was caused by a heavier engine and gearbox not Dallara. I think the undertray is to blame for lifting on ovals, nothing to do with weight distribution.


Top
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 4:11 pm 
Offline
German Touring Car Series #1 Fan
German Touring Car Series #1 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 4957
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 202 times
dicksplaash wrote:
Bleu wrote:
The canopies would also need to be designed so that they don't deflect debris to the crowd.


Because that is such a big problem elsewhere where cars with roofs race...?

Most of these problems don't exist, because, you know:


But 1) you're far less likely to have wheels in particular falling off and flying everywhere and 2) the canopies in an LMP are quite steep whereas from what they're talking about, an F1 canopy would probably end up with quite a shallow angle like a fighter jet, meaning anything deflected would go a lot further


Top
PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:49 pm 
Offline
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:12 am
Posts: 8205
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 564 times
Mr Safety himself doesn't like the idea of closed cockpits: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/0 ... 9?irpc=932


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited