USF1 -- F1's All-American Challenger

[madtown77]

Test conditions might be different as well. That video from Williams is older, maybe they increases the speed?

[Mystery Steve]

Is a nose supposed to desintegrate like that in the test, I thought there would be something left halfway or so?

Sure... why not? The goal isn't only integrity of the structure, but the peak and average g-force felt by the driver. Besides, the driver's feet are at least a few inches behind the bulkhead of the monocoque. So even if the monocoque sustains some damage, the energy absorbed should be enough that the driver can exit without life threatening injuries. Of course, it is hard to prevent all injuries such as Timo Glock breaking his toes in Japan. The goal of the test is just to ensure that the impact is survivable, like Glock's was.

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc0wFyCIDfE

As with many other parts of the car over the past few months, the nose section of the new US F1 car undergoes crash testing in Cranfield, England. The nose performs well, breaking up as it should in the test last week but the guys from the composite department in the Charlotte, NC, base, watching this video for the first time, dont know whether to laugh or cry

The original comment of the U-tube clip says it was all fine.

[ringo]

Compare both those videos with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2H_leY_Q8k
around 1:30 or so, williams' nosecone is less damaged after crash. Maybe it is suboptimal?

There is seems to be a bump stop at the bottom of the trolly, check 1:30. However it's hard to tell if it touches the wall. Anyways, the USF1 nose just has to have the right deceleration up to a certain lenght of the nose cone to pass the test.

[djos]

Compare both those videos with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2H_leY_Q8k
around 1:30 or so, williams' nosecone is less damaged after crash. Maybe it is suboptimal?

That is an old Williams test as you can tell by Webber's helmet ('05 or '06) and the standards weren't as strict as they are now - now the Nose now has to absorb a lot more energy.

[xpensive]

Is a nose supposed to desintegrate like that in the test, I thought there would be something left halfway or so?

Sure... why not? The goal isn't only integrity of the structure, but the peak and average g-force felt by the driver. ... The goal of the test is just to ensure that the impact is survivable, like Glock's was.

Not sure if I get this, if the objective is to minimise "g-force", you should obviously use up as much as possible of the
nose-length "s", when a = v^2/(2*s). But you would need a bit of margin, as having the final stop only when the
impact-structure is completely gone would cause an accelleration "spike"?

And if the USF1 test was a successful one, why the long faces of the staff?

[Mystery Steve]

Is a nose supposed to desintegrate like that in the test, I thought there would be something left halfway or so?

Sure... why not? The goal isn't only integrity of the structure, but the peak and average g-force felt by the driver. ... The goal of the test is just to ensure that the impact is survivable, like Glock's was.

Not sure if I get this, if the objective is to minimise "g-force", you should obviously use up as much as possible of the
nose-length "s", when a = v^2/(2*s). But you would need a bit of margin, as having the final stop only when the
impact-structure is completely gone would cause an accelleration "spike"?

And if the USF1 test was a successful one, why the long faces of the staff?

There would be a spike, but would it be critical after the nosecone has already absorbed all that energy? It would depend on the overall design and intended speed range, but if designed properly it shouldn't be an issue. Also, if you look closely there is some nosecone still left (an inch or two maybe?).

Besides, this is a very specific head-on test which rarely occurs on track, thankfully. There isn't a one-size-fits-all equation that says this nosecone will keep you safe or this one will kill you. The standards that are set are based on minimum requirements that are considered to be "safe." It's a repeatable and measurable worst case scenario.

And I wouldn't read into the faces too much. We don't know if their "reaction" was before or after the test. Maybe it didn't pass the test, but I'm sure if it didn't then they received valuable data that they can use to make the necessary modifications. And, yes, their PR blunders have been well documented, but like I've said before; I am judging the organization on it's technical achievements. If they show up with even a half decent baseline car to evaluate during next season I would consider it a successful rookie season for them regardless of how many points they score, if any.

[xpensive]

From the F1 Technical regulations, August 2009;

16.2 Frontal test :
All parts which could materially affect the outcome of the test must be fitted to the test structure which must be solidly fixed to the trolley through its engine mounting points but not in such a way as to increase its impact resistance.
The fuel tank must be fitted and must be full of water. A dummy weighing at least 75kg must be fitted with safety belts described in Article 14.4 fastened.
However, with the safety belts unfastened, the dummy must be able to move forwards freely in the cockpit. The extinguishers, as described in Article 14.1 must also be fitted. For the purposes of this test, the total weight of the trolley and test structure shall be 780kg (+1%/-0) and the velocity of impact not less than 15 metres/second. The resistance of the test structure must be such that during the impact :
- the peak deceleration over the first 150mm of deformation does not exceed 10g ;
- the peak deceleration over the first 60kJ energy absorption does not exceed 20g ;
- the average deceleration of the trolley does not exceed 40g ;
- the peak deceleration in the chest of the dummy does not exceed 60g for more than a cumulative 3ms, this being the resultant of data from three axes.

My comments:
* 780 kg at 15 m/s has 87.75 kJ of energy.
* From 15 m/s to zero over one meter is an average 11.5 g.
* 10 g de-accelleration over 150 mm means going from 15 m/s to 14 m/s.

My interpretation is that doing away with more than 60 kJ (70%) of the energy before the "bump", is the trick here?

[cooper-climax]

Looking through the regs. I can't find any standard for the nose structure. So I have no idea if it passed this test.
The only impact testing standards I can find are for the system as a whole, (the one that Xpensive has just posted.) and are performed with the nose on the tub.
Was this just an internal test before going for the FIA certification?

[xpensive]

The way I read the regulations, the nose structure is what is referred to as "All parts which could materially affect the outcome of the test", why what you have to do is to log speed as a function of time from 15 m/s (54 km/h or 34 mph) to zero when deforming said nose structure, which will give decelerations and energy absorption?

However, I suspect that neither the USF1 nor Lotus test is official FIA such.

[WhiteBlue]

From the other video we see that teams do crash their noses seperately at that facility. It would make sense to do so before the complete chassis becomes available. Cranfield probably can tell you nose specific data you need to meet in order to pass the FIA test. It would be a good validation to pass such a test before you use one of your brand new chassis for the FIA test.

The faces of the people are no surprise if you consider that 2 weeks of work were crashed in the test. I guess it is strange to experience that for the first time.

[cooper-climax]

I know I'm being a pedant with this, and it's just poetic license but "Two days to build, two milliseconds to destroy" means it defiantly failed.
At 15m/s they should be looking for deceleration over something in the order of 60 milliseconds.

<edited because I can't spell or count.>

[xpensive]

I know I'm being a pedant with this and it's just poetic license, but "Two days, to build two milliseconds to destroy" means it defiantly failed.
At 15m/s they should be looking for deceleration over something in the order of 60 milliseconds.

Never mind the milliseconds C-C, that's just the typical rethoric we've grown used to from Windsor.
Whenever the FIA-test is passed, I'm certain he will let us know without a millisecond of delay.

[marcush.]

i found this from Formtech -they aquired the assets of Superaguri when they went bust:
http://www.formtech-composites.co.uk/f1 ... study.html

[xpensive]

Interesting piece marcush, thanx.

Just a sidenote, when we are talking about energy absorbtion;
If we consider the nose-structure being one meter long, which collapses completely, and the deceleration
is linear from 15 m/s to zero, we will have a Power-burst of 660 kW for 0.133 seconds. Think about it.