F1 Quiz Chain

[WhiteBlue]

The Virgin Racing's and USF1's approach to rely entirely on simulation for F1 design without real world verification and testing is a much talked about technology highlight of the 2010 F1 season.

Contrary to what some people think design based on simulation has been successfully used in F1 engineering for more than two decades to push the boundaries of performance.

Name two prominent head line grabbing high speed accidents in F1 racing where simulation technology was involved. In both cases f1 drivers had severe accidents in F1 events. Both times the crashes triggered massive debates on safety and the appropriate reaction to the problems.

In the first case the accident was fatal but the cause of the accident was traced to the failure of an abused component and not a design fault.

In the second case both team mates had accidents one of which was at high speed and led to driver injury but the official review revealed that the designer had completely misjudged dynamic forces causing the design to fail at less than 10% of the required design life time.

Name the races, the teams, the drivers and the respective components that caused the accident.

As a bonus you may identify the likely reason for the design fault. The public was never told but the circumstances are typical for a classical engineering desaster. For a successfull solution to the bonus question I will give up my question right a second time.

[manchild]

In the first case the accident was fatal but the cause of the accident was traced to the failure of an abused component and not a design fault.

This sounds too obvious Senna, Williams, the welded tube on steering, Imola 1994

Second one, Schumacher, Ferrari, British GP 1999 CF chassis

I'm not sure if I understood your your question properly (time-wise and technology-wise).

So, I'd also say

1982 Belgian GP, Zolder, Gilles Villeneuve, Ferrari (seatbelts pulled out of their mountings as chassis fell apart)

1980 United States Grand Prix West, Long Beach, Ensign, Clay Regazzoni (titanium brake pedal broke in two)

although it might be

1990 Spanish GP, Jerez, Martin Donnelly, Lotus (CF chassis disintegrated after impact).

As I've said, I'm not sure what you meant by "high speed accidents in F1 racing where simulation technology was involved"

[WhiteBlue]

Sorry all those are wrong. There are not so many fatal crashes that involved a car utilizing simulation technology one way or another. But believe me that car did. The design wasn't particularly safe and was changed after another non fatal accident, but it was not the official cause of the fatal crash.

I will give further hints about the second case which saw accidents of two team mates. This second case happened a long time after the first case with the fatal crash. To the day many people think that a faulty manufacturing process or material caused the two crashes of the team mates. But that is easily rejected by the official report of the manufacturer which confirmed the cause as underestimation of dynamic loads. The designer had introduced a new structural design that was aimed at improved performance.

[RDJEHV]

The last case is probably the tyre failure of Ralf and Jarno in Indy 2005. First case was before my time. With some googling I could find it but I consider that cheating!

[Roger the knife]

How about Saubers wing problem in Brazil a couple of years ago, and I wonder if you're also referring to the Lotus 72 and Jochen Rindt's crash

[WhiteBlue]

The last case is probably the tyre failure of Ralf and Jarno in Indy 2005. First case was before my time.

Right, it was Toyboata with the Michelin tyre sidewall failures. But the team mate with the other accident at turn 5 wasn't Jarno Trulli.



The next hint would have been this:

Less than a year after the race which saw the design fault the chair man and equity holder of the eponomys company drowned in a mysterious accident after shelling out 28 Mio US $ and doing massive damage to the US market.

Come on the other case is ludicrously easy. How many dead F1 drivers in an F1 event did we have in the last 20 years?

Edited for historic detail

[WhiteBlue]

How about Saubers wing problem in Brazil a couple of years ago, and I wonder if you're also referring to the Lotus 72 and Jochen Rindt's crash

no

[timbo]

Come on the other case is ludicrously easy. How many dead F1 drivers in an F1 event did we have in the last 20 years?

Ratzenberger on Simtek? That's one who's left.
That was Nick Wirth's chassis, I believe?
Front wing came of after he made an excursion of the track on the previous lap.

[WhiteBlue]

Come on the other case is ludicrously easy. How many dead F1 drivers in an F1 event did we have in the last 20 years?

Ratzenberger on Simtek? That's one who's left.
That was Nick Wirth's chassis, I believe?
Front wing came of after he made an excursion of the track on the previous lap.

exactly!!! SIMulation TEKnology. The Simtek had to be redesigned after another airborne accident but the official version of the Ratzenberger accident was failure of the front wing after previous damage from an excursion. Because Roland was under time pressure he could not go into the box and change the wing.

Michelin background: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/05 ... lis-column

Although Michelin's concern for driver safety is admirable, the inescapable fact remains that Michelin blew it in the biggest possible way by showing up at Indy with tires that were simply not race worthy. This is particularly amazing because Michelin had been enjoying an outstanding 2005 F1 season, with its teams winning every race and every pole. The French company's tires have received much of the credit for the fall of the long-dominant Bridgestone-mounted Ferraris.

At Indy, however, the Michelins couldn't withstand the loads generated in the banked Turn 13, which is negotiated at about 195 mph. The reason for this is hard to fathom, as this corner has been banked at 9 degrees and 12 minutes ever since the track was built in 1909 and F1 cars have raced on it five times prior to this year's race. Furthermore, Bridgestone was able to produce a tire that survived this corner while delivering decent performance (Schumacher qualified fifth).

There was some talk that the problem was caused by the resurfacing of the Indy oval last fall, but the drivers at the Indy 500 found that the new track was easier on tires.

Each team in F1 is allowed to come to a race with two different dry-tire compounds to allow for differing track conditions, but apparently, neither of the options Michelin presented to the teams was suitable for Indy. Higher tire pressures were thought to help durability at some cost to handling, but not sufficiently to solve the problem.

What's more astonishing about this failure is that the weekend's weather was moderate. The temperature on race day was in the 70s with mostly overcast skies. How could the Michelin tires not survive more than 10 laps at that temperature when they should have lasted the entire race distance on a track 20 degrees warmer?

Over to you timbo if you can name the team mate! Can you also name what almost certainly went wrong with the Michies?

[RDJEHV]

ahh, they had the friday drivers back then. (As I'm not fit to think of an challenging question, I withhold my answer. hint: He used to be Klaus Ludwigs teammate)

[WhiteBlue]

It looks like Timbo will not be back shortly. So I give the rest of the solution as well.

The team mate was actually Ralf's replacement Ricardo Zonta who blew the other tyre.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw[/youtube]

Many mechanical engineers will have seen "Galloping Berta" the Tacoma narrow bridge desaster. Wind induced vibrations hit eigenfrequencies of the construction and the resulting movements destroyed the bridge. It is a a typical engineering disaster that can hit any system which features springs and masses. When the system gets excited by forces at frequencies close to an eigenfrequency we see the typical failures at fractions of the calculated design life.

In 2005 Michelin had build a side wall and shoulder with an extremely low spring rate compared to previous designs. The advantage was a very quick heat up with superior performance in qualifying. Later the compound would go through an obvious heat cure cycle and achieve a final resistance against the abrasion of racing use. The rumor was the side wall or shoulder was reinforced with a metal band or foil that acted like a composite construction with the fibers of the carcasse. It appears that Michelin did not fully understand all aspects of the forces that were present in the dynamic deformation at turn 13. Some people believe that they hit a wave form in the tyre deformation that synched with an eigenfrequency of that particular construction, potentially a circular running wave. The stresses from the uncalculated deformation increased the dynamic loads far over the computed service loads, and presto disaster struck.

[manchild]

During 1993, Simtek developed a car for 1994 with active suspension, but than came in Mosley and banned it in no time. Many teams, including Simtek had very short time on their hands to make switch from active to passive suspension. All cars were modified, without being properly designed. As it greatly affect the aero of the car both Ratzenberger and Senna incidents are by some experts related to that same active to passive change. Don't forget Barihello's airborne crash in same season. Those are at least 3 completely different cars that have airborne in one season. Yes, yes, I know, it is easier to blame any team or driver than Mad Max.

[WhiteBlue]

Actually nobody was blamed for Ratzenberger's accident. And you have to keep in mind that Max Mosley at that time had by far less power than at later times. It is so convenient to blame one party when the technical change was obviously very much under the control of the the collective Concord system of vetos.

[Tim.Wright]

During 1993, Simtek developed a car for 1994 with active suspension, but than came in Mosley and banned it in no time. Many teams, including Simtek had very short time on their hands to make switch from active to passive suspension. All cars were modified, without being properly designed. As it greatly affect the aero of the car both Ratzenberger and Senna incidents are by some experts related to that same active to passive change. Don't forget Barihello's airborne crash in same season. Those are at least 3 completely different cars that have airborne in one season. Yes, yes, I know, it is easier to blame any team or driver than Mad Max.

I dont follow you. 2 of those didnt become airbourne and Barrichello's flight was caused by bouncing off a curb. It would take a long stretch of the imagination to say any of these accidents were caused by regulation changes. Barrichello's was driver error, Ratzenburgers was component failure due to a previous driver error.

Tim

[WhiteBlue]

During 1993, Simtek developed a car for 1994 with active suspension, but than came in Mosley and banned it in no time. Many teams, including Simtek had very short time on their hands to make switch from active to passive suspension. All cars were modified, without being properly designed. As it greatly affect the aero of the car both Ratzenberger and Senna incidents are by some experts related to that same active to passive change. Don't forget Barihello's airborne crash in same season. Those are at least 3 completely different cars that have airborne in one season. Yes, yes, I know, it is easier to blame any team or driver than Mad Max.

I dont follow you. 2 of those didnt become airbourne and Barrichello's flight was caused by bouncing off a curb. It would take a long stretch of the imagination to say any of these accidents were caused by regulation changes. Barrichello's was driver error, Ratzenburgers was component failure due to a previous driver error.

Tim

Actually those accidents to a great extend triggered regulation changes. They analysed the tendency for cars to get airborne and introduced the stepped bottom rule for 1995 which prevented the worst of airborne accidents. Later also the front wing ground clearance was increased and it had similar benefits for safety.

With active systems being reliable and redundant to 2010 standards I would actually support active ride height again simply in oder to boost performance and reduce the need to use fuel for power. I would make that a function of the standard ECU and not a competitive feature so that all cars derive equal performance potential from active right height at a safe minimum ground clearance.