Belgian GP 2010 - Spa Francorchamps

[ChrisTipper]

It looks like the Williams car isnt as strong atm as the ferrari.

The race it self was a classic and shows that the older tracks bring up so much action!!!

[volarchico]

Does anyone have good pictures of the vortices being shed off the rear wings during the race? There were some really great side views near the last quarter of the race I think that showed them trailing a few meters behind, but I don't have a recording to pull still from. Thanks!

[DaveKillens]

I gotta tell you guys that this season is one of the most exciting ever, and Spa delivered. I really enjoyed an interesting race.

There were memorable performances by many drivers, while others made mistakes. Hamilton drove a decent race, once past turn one he wasn't really threatened. Webber made the best of a crappy start, and for that I currently have him as my pick for the 2010 WDC. Kubica has my vote as driver of the year, his performances in that Renault are heroic and the stuff of legends. If he was in a Red Bull, McLaren, or Ferrari I believe he would be leading in points.

Two title contenders made good and pulled a gap on those chasing them. For Button, Vettel, and Alonso it was a disaster race.

I was really interesting watching this race because of the slower and fast sections. Some cars such as Force India were rockets on the straights, while others displayed their prowess in corners. All too often we have watched cars with relatively similar performance characteristics. But now, we have cars that are fast on the straights while weaker in corners, and we also have cars slower in straights but killer in corners. It makes for great spectating and really makes things interesting.

Here in Canada we have the opportunity to watch Formula One on one of two feeds. TSN gets the BBC feed, and later in the day, SpeedTV gets to show the race too. And without a doubt, the BBC commentators just plain suck. It's absolutely horrible. The BBC announcers talk more about themselves and gush over Hamilton, while the SpeedTV guys talk racing. There's a huge difference in quality, and I have to feel sorry for anyone stuck in the BBC cycle of inane commentary and fanboy syrup.

[mep]

@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.

Damit, do you read what I try to tell you or simply not understand?
I already said that the Ferrari got accelerated and the Williams decelerated.
That’s more or less the thing I tried to explain to you. Now you want to explain this to me.

Well again both cars see the same force but on one car it can be transformed in acceleration therefore reducing the stress in the components.
Note the components who will fail are located between the cars mass(inertia)and the force.
Lets say two bodies with equal strength and mass crash into each other causing one to get accelerated and the other to get stopped.
Then the stopped one is more likely to fail.

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

yea possible

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)

no

3. The direction that the loads were applied to the various components is the crucial factor in the outcome

maybe, but we can't know this.

[marcush.]

obviously ..in Spa we have seen overtaking due to different speeds ...but this really does not show in the list of topspeeds achieved.
by no ways the force indias or mclaren cars were significantly quicker ,in fact the top speed was just betwen 305 for massa and 298 for yamamoto ,only Virgin and Lotus falling back to 290 ...obviously sacrificing top speed for lap time concentrating on their two ways fight.

But how come this ,only the effect of slipstreaming helping the slower cars that much? Sutil overtaking move with Schumacher was really looking so easy ...assuming their speed difference was like 5.5kmh it would take you some
800+ metres and 10s to complete a pass at that sort of speed ...there is not many tracks where you would drive 10s at that speed ..just how long is the Kemmel straight? I believe you need the opponent have an issue through eau rouge to make it happen..

[Just_a_fan]

@mep

I suspected we were agreeing with each other all along...

[nipo]

mep I think you just might have made a mistake. Acceleration and deceleration are identical in nature, and by the 2nd Law of Motion the force acting on both bodies must be exactly the same.

I think the point where you've got it wrong is you are considering something else in the context of impact.

Let me put things into context. Consider the case where you want to smash your old TV with a baseball bat. Suppose you can choose to:
#1 Put it on a low friction surface and smash it. i.e. [TV1] <=== BAT
#2 Put it in front of another identical TV set and smash it. i.e. [TV2][TV1] <=== BAT

It's very easy to see the TV stands a lesser chance in #2. Why? Because in that case TV1 is actually subject to the following TWO forces AT THE TIME OF IMPACT:
(i) Force applied from the bat
(ii) Residual of (i) being transmitted to the TV2, and acting back on TV1 based on 2nd Law of Motion

These two forces happen at the SAME TIME (at impact) and together they cause greater deformation on the TV than case #1 where the only force in action is the bat's force. In your words, the TV in case #1 had "room to accelerate" that it did not have in case #2 (this is actually looking at the impact from another perspective - the conservation of energy).

Now all that seems to suggest what you are saying is correct. Exactly the opposite. Your mistake is in taking this as your model of the crash. The model should simply have been a TV moving at a certain speed, crashing into another TV, i.e. there is NO BAT and force (i) is non-existent. Again we can look at this from the perspective of energy conservation, where both cars had no intervention in terms of transforming the total energy into kinetic energy (acceleration and deceleration are relative and of the same nature).

Conclusion: The forces acting on both cars are identical and assuming the impact structures have the same stiffness they should withstand equal degrees of deformation. In reality they did not, hence the impact structures did NOT have the same stiffness.

In simpler terms, the car in front took the hit at a stiffer point / stronger angle.

[WhiteBlue]

I have done a little foto analysis of the Incidents with Vettel



Button on the inside of the track there are rain drops on the camera indicating a partially wet track



Button defends by moving out



Vettel follows



Vettel decides to pass on the outside



Vettel correcting the steering input



This probably where the back steps out



Vettel applying opposite lock



understeering towards Button still with opposite lock



about to hit Button



Radiator is pierced



Getting free from the wreck. Vettel was steering too aggressively considering the bumps and the wet track. IMO not an accident that he considered likely to happen. He simply misjudged the grip available. I don't agree with the penalty which dropped him out of the points for this. My opinion is shared by the majority of voters of the F1technical poll.




And the Liuzzi incident almost at the same place in bus stop which would not have happened without the penalty.




Vettel way behind and Liuzzi not covering the inside



Vettel goes for the inside in a late breaking move



gaining on Liuzzi



getting ahead on the inside, breaking late



coming to the corner with Vettel clearly ahead and starting to turn in



Vettel goes deeper into the corner almost at the apex but leaving enough room to the outside



Liuzzi turns in stronger than Vettel instead of using the room at the outside



this is probably where Liuzzi's end plate hits Vettel's left rear wheel



front wing flies away



turning the corner with enough room on the outside. Vettel had the racing line and Liuzzi should have kept free. Liuzzi IMO tried too early to get the outside for the next corner.

[forty-two]

Interesting photo sequence. It's a shame there isn't an easy way of overlaying a timestamp onto the images.

this is probably where Liuzzi's end plate hits Vettel's left rear wheel

Correction: This is probably where Vettel drove over Liuzzi's FW end plate.

May I ask WB, are you employed by Vettel to defend his actions? I only ask because it would appear that you doth protest too much.

[forty-two]

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

The BBC commentators (Martin Brundle in particular) picked up on that before the lights went out. I suppose the stewards either didn't notice or forgot to follow up on it later, what with all the other dramas which unfolded during the race.

I remember a few years ago, a similar thing happened (I can't remember which driver ATM) but it was explained that the sensors on the grid work by detecting movement rather than specifically position. Seems a little backward to me if this is the case. A cheap and simple active IR beam placed just in front of each gridbox would solve that problem. The installation of which would not even involve digging up the tarmac, as the beam and sensor could be mounted on the wall either side of the circuit.

Does anyone know if this is something which could be investigated after the race? I doubt Massa actually did it on purpose, but I've seen penalties for less in the past.

[WhiteBlue]

This was Vettel's corner. Liuzzi was behind and should have stayed clear. The picture in question shows clearly that Liuzzi turns in sharper than Vettel. He should not have done that because he was behind and Vettel was entitled to choose his line. Liuzzi should have considered that Vettel would go wide in this corner due to late breaking.

[747heavy]

He (Luzzi) has to turn in sharper at this point, if he wants to make the corner, otherwise he would have run off the track.
But I agree, that it was Vettels´s corner/line at that moment.
To me it´s and racing incident, similar to Schumacher vs. Rossberg, don´t think it requires a penality on either side.

In the first sequence, it looks like Vettel is running out of steering lock/control imput to catch the rear/OS.

[raymondu999]

I don't think you can blame Liuzzi though. I thought Vettel slid the rear and his rear made contact with Liuzzi's wing

[bcoxa]

So as Button was ahead Vettle should also have stayed clear?

I don't think I'd watch your version of racing.

[marcush.]

the liuzzi thing ..I don´t understand where liuzzi was going ..first he did not cover the inside...so logically there was no ways he could prevent seb from sneaking up there...but what made liuzzi try and challenge seb on the brakes then ,instead of turning in normal with the option to fight back on the run to la source....he must have had to think about his lack of top speed perhaps...so nothing left to work on his racing.


The Seb/button thing was just a huge tankslapper ,it was over as soon as seb flicked the steering to the left..nothing to save for him as the front tyres had grip not the rears..