Belgian GP 2010 - Spa Francorchamps

[747heavy]

don´t get lost on the way

[raymondu999]

What do the red/ black colors denote?

[Just_a_fan]

Probably just makes it easier to see which number relates to which bit of the track. Look at the bit marked 17 18 19 - quite easy to use the wrong corner number in a hurry if it was all one colour.

[Just_a_fan]

The impact ripped Ruben's front wheel off. In effect the Williams acted as the crumple zone for both cars. Ruben's nose went in to the gap between the Ferrari's rear tyre and side pod, the front wing hit Alonso's rear wheel just before the front tyre did. No doubt that Alonso was lucky not to be taken out there and then.

hahah
both cars got loaded with exactly the same force.
actio = reactio
The Ferrari was simply stronger (on the loaded point) than the Williams, thats why it didn't break.
Still surprising.

Who said they didn't experience the same force? Yes, the Ferrari was lucky to take the impact on a stronger bit than the bit on the Williams. Hence the Williams acted as the crumple zone. Really, it's not that difficult to understand...

[Ray]

They alternate red/black/red/black. Easier to differentiate.

[siskue2005]

look at Massa !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kChqJVjp9U

[747heavy]

look at Massa !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kChqJVjp9U

good spot !!!
should get a drive through for that, or any form of penality.
bit of a oversight from race control to clear the start.

[raymondu999]

A meter or so ahead of the grid box eh? I remember Webber did that too. In Bahrain or somesuch race

[mep]

Obviously it is
because you point out that the Williams acted as crash structure (crumble zone).
That’s not the most important point because both cars still see the same force.
Your sentence sounds like the crumble of the Williams safed the Ferrari but it only limited peak force (at leath when they both have equal strenght).


Myurr got it right.:

The important thing though is where that force was applied and how much was absorbed by the car and how much was transmitted on or dissipated. In Rubens case, as with Vettel and Button, the car absorbed the impact. In Alonso's case most of the energy was dissipated by the car spinning, lessening the loads on his own car. It was still very surprising how little damage occured, but it wasn't because his car was soooo much stronger than the others.

Exactly that is the point.
Both cars got loaded with the same force but the Ferrari got accelerated by it whereas the Williams got decelerated. For the Ferrari a big part of the energy got transmitted into motion reducing the stress on the single parts.

[747heavy]

well whoever does it, should be penalized IMHO - my comment was not aimed against Massa in particular.

I have seens drivers/teams being penalized for less then a meter, and for an small offset to the side, not even gaining an advantage towards the guy in front.

[strad]

Is there anything you guys don't make more complicated than it really is?

[Just_a_fan]

@mep

Sure, the Ferrari moved but the impact on the Williams was rearwards on the front wheel. We all know how easy it is to knock the front suspension off the cars in even a relatively minor impact.

The Williams broke because it took the force in a weak direction, the Ferrari in a strong direction.

If the Ferrari moving saved it from damage then, by your own assertion that both received the same force, then the movement would have saved the Williams too.

The point is that they received the same load but in areas that the cars have different strengths. A few mm either way could have seen the end of the Ferrari as well as the Williams.

[mep]

@mep
The Williams broke because it took the force in a weak direction, the Ferrari in a strong direction.

You can't say this. The suspension should be quite stiff in this car lenghtwise direction because of the high braking forces.
Anyway it is still amazing that there is no damage, the crash was quite heavy.

If the Ferrari moving saved it from damage then, by your own assertion that both received the same force, then the movement would have saved the Williams too.

No, exactly here you miss the point.
Ferrari was moving in direction of the force -> reducing the stress.
Williams was moving against the force -> keeping or increasing the stress.

[Giblet]

The Ferrari was also in the corner more on the edge of adhesion. It didn't need much of a bump to break it's traction.

[Just_a_fan]

@mep

The Ferrari was actually accelerated laterally by the Williams. It was not moving away from the Williams in any meaningful way until after the Williams hit it. Thus the Williams was likely to have been subjected to higher loads than the Ferrari in order for it to have had a failure. As both have basically the same mass and were subjected to similar accelerations (they stuck together initially) the forces experienced by each would have been similar.


However, the suspension on the Williams failed where the Ferrari's didn't. This suggests one (or a combination) of the following:
1. The Williams front suspension is weaker than the Ferrari's rear suspension
2. The Williams was subjected to higher point loads than the Ferrari by virtue of where the loads were applied to each car (hence higher stress - nothing to do with who was moving in what direction)
3. The direction that the loads were applied to the various components is the crucial factor in the outcome

1. and 3. are the most likely of these.