|
|
Post by kidrybot on Nov 29, 2020 17:25:13 GMT -8
Does carbon fiber construction support combustion? Only if it makes Hamilton look bad. |
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Nov 29, 2020 17:26:25 GMT -8
First; so happy for the halo and the personnel in the medical car who helped to save Grosjean's life. And to Grosjean for extricating himself so quickly. I was not overly impressed with the trackside personnel; one who didn't seem to know how to pull the pin on his extinguisher and one who crossed the track without looking. I don't have a ton of fire extinguisher training at the track but I was also baffled by the first guy coming from the back of Grosjean's accident (from behind the barrier) who was spraying the extinguisher no where near the flames. Was he trying to prevent the liquids on the ground from catching fire? Still, a lot of volunteers getting it done. Wow. I get that Bottas got screwed and it wasn't his own doing, but he does seem to need a bit more motivation on passing. The track next week is going to be wild. Russel needs to be in that car next year, Bottas has shown he's not able to fill lulu's shoes going forward. Bottas has shown he is the perfect #2 - fast enough in most cases to be 2nd to Hamilton, but not fast enough to create competition to LH about being #1. Very few teams have prospered in having co #1's. |
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 29, 2020 18:04:16 GMT -8
What's not needed is a slew of knee jerk reactions to Rogro's crash, but one thing that should be addressed is the connection on the monocoque to the engine mounts. That car isn't going back to Haas, the FIA is gonna study that thing like an alien corpse in area 51. AND the tests they do should help decide how close to failing the Halo in fact was to determine if new rules need to be implemented or if the damage was well within design limits. They will continue to run on tracks with Armco and it's possible this could happen again, if it happened at a higher speed or different angle would it still protect the driver are two of the questions they will be trying to figure out. |
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 29, 2020 18:09:21 GMT -8
One thing I also noticed at a the same time RoGro was going thru the Armco was Kimi, I think, on the opposite side of the track headed for a barrier that seemed to be made of the same Armco sticking out towards the track, similar angle to what they ended up doing with the concrete that he had to swerve back onto the track to avoid. That seems like a very poor design, they made a choke point on a race track just after a high speed turn.
|
|
|
|
Post by overboost on Nov 29, 2020 19:34:47 GMT -8
That guy did something ALOT of people would never do!!! And doing it probably saved Romain's life as he new exactly which way to go to safety. I worked as paid f/f for 24 years and worked with people who would NEVER even consider doing that no matter what!!! The medical team knows the drivers so maybe that plays into van der Merwe's and Dr's decision to jump in there. I thought the medical car and doctor were there to attend to injured drivers. I wonder what training they have had on extricating drivers from a burning car. Probably most of what they did today was instincts and concern for the driver than on actual training. The fire marshal using the fire extinguisher did a great job also. In the picture you can clearly see he is keeping the flames off of Grosjean allowing him to get to safety. Another angle.  |
|
|
|
Post by Red_Hercules on Nov 29, 2020 20:48:35 GMT -8
I have always wondered why F1 still uses aramco barriers and why F1 has not adapted the safer-barrier technology used in the US racing series.
I am so glad RoGro is OK. This brought back memories of me watching F1 in the 70s and seeing horrific accidents taking the lives of some of my favorite drivers and almost taking the life of Niki Lauda.
And the medical car personnel did an amazing job. I thought the medical director would surely hurt himself in saving RoGro.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Nov 29, 2020 21:51:54 GMT -8
The safer barrier is not universally applied in the US. NASCAR has it basically everywhere at their oval tracks because the cars kept finding the missing spots. At Indy the outsides of the short chutes and both sides of the front and back straights are solid walls. Only short sections in the turns are safer. The only safer barrier on the inside is at turn 4 where cars have a history of spinning into the wall before the pit entrance. The basic requirement for the use of the safer barrier is the existence of a solid concrete wall behind it. Its not a standalone system. Most road courses still rely on tire barriers and guardrails.
The start is the most dangerous time in F1 as it is in any racing series and is as much a part of what happened to Grosjean as the impact with the guardrail.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Nov 30, 2020 2:26:46 GMT -8
I have always wondered why F1 still uses aramco barriers and why F1 has not adapted the safer-barrier technology used in the US racing series. Safer is always backed up by a concrete wall. A concrete wall with Safer would have killed RoGro in that crash.
Not even an F1 car can keep a driver safe from a near head on crash at 140 mph with an immovable wall. The deceleration alone would kill them.
The problem with the Armco is the gaps between the strips allows a pointy nosed car to split them.
Thick rubber conveyer belt backed by tires would be the safest material for that particular spot. |
|
|
|
Post by olderguysrule on Nov 30, 2020 6:44:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by pushtopass on Nov 30, 2020 6:45:18 GMT -8
Normally a car getting flipped would be the big news of the race but Lance barely rates a mention. Though the RG wreck wasn't Kvyat's fault at all, he surely flipped Stroll.
|
|
|
|
Post by cosmos on Nov 30, 2020 6:54:52 GMT -8
I have always wondered why F1 still uses aramco barriers and why F1 has not adapted the safer-barrier technology used in the US racing series. Safer is always backed up by a concrete wall. A concrete wall with Safer would have killed RoGro in that crash.
Not even an F1 car can keep a driver safe from a near head on crash at 140 mph with an immovable wall. The deceleration alone would kill them.
The problem with the Armco is the gaps between the strips allows a pointy nosed car to split them.
Thick rubber conveyer belt backed by tires would be the safest material for that particular spot. Safer barriers I have seen through my work at the track, have a pyramid of polyunsaturate insulation, in layers, separating the tube steel from the concrete barrier, about 24" +/-. The barrier's tube steel is spot welded together and welded to carrier steel behind it. I think a head-on collision like that may well have split the tube sections as well. That said, the material and design has far more integrity that a typical armco section, though polysio is susceptible to UV and from what I have seen should be replaced more frequently.
I have also seen a car split a conveyor belt and then nose in between tire barriers to hit the armco beyond and destroy the armco, it was a GT car luckily.
None of these systems are designed for a near 90 degree impact, they are meant to contain the car and disperse energy. I trust the FIA will continue to review barrier safety, but clearly their work on car safety was spot on in this case.
EDIT: I stand corrected: For the record: the insulation used is not polyisocyanurate...but extruded polystyrene (XPS) which has a higher compressive value and better UV resistance (but its still susceptible). Polyiso would just disintegrate on impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red_Hercules on Nov 30, 2020 7:16:28 GMT -8
Safer is always backed up by a concrete wall. A concrete wall with Safer would have killed RoGro in that crash.
Not even an F1 car can keep a driver safe from a near head on crash at 140 mph with an immovable wall. The deceleration alone would kill them.
The problem with the Armco is the gaps between the strips allows a pointy nosed car to split them.
Thick rubber conveyer belt backed by tires would be the safest material for that particular spot. Safer barriers I have seen through my work at the track, have a pyramid of polyunsaturate insulation, in layers, separating the tube steel from the concrete barrier, about 24" +/-. The barrier's tube steel is spot welded together and welded to carrier steel behind it. I think a head-on collision like that may well have split the tube sections as well. That said, the material and design has far more integrity that a typical armco section, though polysio is susceptible to UV and from what I have seen should be replaced more frequently.
I have also seen a car split a conveyor belt and then nose in between tire barriers to hit the armco beyond and destroy the armco, it was a GT car luckily.
None of these systems are designed for a near 90 degree impact, they are meant to contain the car and disperse energy. I trust the FIA will continue to review barrier safety, but clearly their work on car safety was spot on in this case.
I guess that's my point ultimately. I believe the "safe-T barrier" (safer barrier) technology is superior in dispersing energy, even compared with traditional tire (tyre) barriers and armco steel barriers. Ultimately, it comes down to the type of collision, which in this case was practically at 90º degrees. And at this angle, like you all said, almost any barrier would not have been able to disperse the energy. So we're thankful for the Halo and hope that some kind of technology is invented that can take 90 degree impacts..... Something that will deform and absorb at the same time.... Carbon nano-tubes with some kind of elasticity? |
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Nov 30, 2020 7:27:14 GMT -8
Safer barriers I have seen through my work at the track, have a pyramid of polyunsaturate insulation, in layers, separating the tube steel from the concrete barrier, about 24" +/-. The barrier's tube steel is spot welded together and welded to carrier steel behind it. I think a head-on collision like that may well have split the tube sections as well. That said, the material and design has far more integrity that a typical armco section, though polysio is susceptible to UV and from what I have seen should be replaced more frequently.
I have also seen a car split a conveyor belt and then nose in between tire barriers to hit the armco beyond and destroy the armco, it was a GT car luckily.
None of these systems are designed for a near 90 degree impact, they are meant to contain the car and disperse energy. I trust the FIA will continue to review barrier safety, but clearly their work on car safety was spot on in this case.
I guess that's my point ultimately. I believe the "safe-T barrier" (safer barrier) technology is superior in dispersing energy, even compared with traditional tire (tyre) barriers and armco steel barriers. Ultimately, it comes down to the type of collision, which in this case was practically at 90º degrees. And at this angle, like you all said, almost any barrier would not have been able to disperse the energy. So we're thankful for the Halo and hope that some kind of technology is invented that can take 90 degree impacts..... Something that will deform and absorb at the same time.... Carbon nano-tubes with some kind of elasticity? Or maybe even something that can get the car turned slightly so it doesn't hit the barriers head on, no ideas what might work as there are LOTS of types of racing it would have to work on. I guess unfortunately you can't make unlimited run off areas everywhere so there always has to be a stopping point some place. Wasn't it Michael Schmacher who broke his leg(s) going straight on into tires and then hitting the Armco behind them? |
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Nov 30, 2020 7:56:20 GMT -8
Normally a car getting flipped would be the big news of the race but Lance barely rates a mention. Though the RG wreck wasn't Kvyat's fault at all, he surely flipped Stroll. The Halo certainly didn't help Stroll's ability to exit the car with it being upside down. |
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Nov 30, 2020 8:02:44 GMT -8
Question
Where tracks want to continue using Armco barriers - would 'fronting' it with full width conveyor belting, secured top & bottom, be adequate protection to prevent cars from 'splitting' the elements of the Armco?
|
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Nov 30, 2020 8:09:52 GMT -8
Normally a car getting flipped would be the big news of the race but Lance barely rates a mention. Though the RG wreck wasn't Kvyat's fault at all, he surely flipped Stroll. The Halo certainly didn't help Stroll's ability to exit the car with it being upside down. Please, Stroll got out just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Nov 30, 2020 8:11:17 GMT -8
Question Where tracks want to continue using Armco barriers - would 'fronting' it with full width conveyor belting, secured top & bottom, be adequate protection to prevent cars from 'splitting' the elements of the Armco? At the speed Grosjean was going? 130+ MPH straight in? No. |
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Nov 30, 2020 8:25:23 GMT -8
Question Where tracks want to continue using Armco barriers - would 'fronting' it with full width conveyor belting, secured top & bottom, be adequate protection to prevent cars from 'splitting' the elements of the Armco? At the speed Grosjean was going? 130+ MPH straight in? No. IMO the only thing that would help armco would be to add strips of armco that cover the joints so there are zero gaps. In other words, 5 strips of armco where now there are 3. |
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Nov 30, 2020 8:33:55 GMT -8
I have always wondered why F1 still uses aramco barriers and why F1 has not adapted the safer-barrier technology used in the US racing series. Safer is always backed up by a concrete wall. A concrete wall with Safer would have killed RoGro in that crash.
Not even an F1 car can keep a driver safe from a near head on crash at 140 mph with an immovable wall. The deceleration alone would kill them.
The problem with the Armco is the gaps between the strips allows a pointy nosed car to split them.
Thick rubber conveyer belt backed by tires would be the safest material for that particular spot. On top of that I think Mikey made an excellent point about how the end of the wall juts out at an angel back towards the track, other circuits keep the barriers as parallel to the road as possible and create access gaps by overlapping with the following wall set behind the leading one. |
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Nov 30, 2020 8:57:04 GMT -8
Safer is always backed up by a concrete wall. A concrete wall with Safer would have killed RoGro in that crash.
Not even an F1 car can keep a driver safe from a near head on crash at 140 mph with an immovable wall. The deceleration alone would kill them.
The problem with the Armco is the gaps between the strips allows a pointy nosed car to split them.
Thick rubber conveyer belt backed by tires would be the safest material for that particular spot. On top of that I think Mikey made an excellent point about how the end of the wall juts out at an angel back towards the track, other circuits keep the barriers as parallel to the road as possible and create access gaps by overlapping with the following wall set behind the leading one. Yes, that was an excellent point. It's not like there is not room there for that. |
|
Korean cable TV is lousy. no more NASCAR nor NHRA
Jul 12, 2024 22:05:14 GMT -8
Korean cable TV is lousy. no more NASCAR nor NHRA
Jul 12, 2024 22:05:14 GMT -8