McLaren Honda have confirmed in a statement today that their driver Fernando Alonso has left the hospital but will not be driving at the final pre-season test at Barcelona, set to start tomorrow.
Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Vasconia wrote:Very funny, but its more than strange to stay two days in the hospital after such a "normal" accident. I am not supporting any paranoia around this accident, but some details are not very normal/usual.
Of course it's strange. But in no way does it point to an electrocution incident. Maybe he's a little more concussed than normal. Maybe his heart rate is abnormally elevated. Maybe he's a little more tired than normal. Maybe there are countless other symptoms that could be going on that could cause him to be kept in for an extra day.
From my little experience about hospitals I know that if they extend your stay at the hospital it is because they have seen something which is not normal(the examples given by you are very common).
Vasconia wrote:I have some doubts about the level of the G-forces involved in the accident and how a theoretically "slow" accident affected Alonso so much, but I am sure that more than one will be able to explain it here.
There was no energy absorption. The wall was concrete and the side impact structures were not used. The only things absorbing energy was the padding inside the helmet and the lateral head restraints.
You could knock yourself out jogging into a brick wall at 10km/h...
Last edited by Tim.Wright on 23 Feb 2015, 17:54, edited 1 time in total.
Tim.Wright wrote:Strange that they state that the cause was a gust of wind while claiming that there was no loss in aerodynamic pressure...
Nor explains the lack of response when doctor knocked his helmet according to witnesses, and the reasons because he had to be sedated. They say it is protocol. Seriously?
Not an engineer but reader of the forum and I wonder about the brake by wire system that is connected to the ERS systems. It maybe could explain single tire mark, veering off in a direction due to uneven bias l to r and does have an ERS connection. And not trying to further speculation but what if electrical discharge occurred post accident after mechanical/electrical failure and thats the condition that some reported he was initially in.Without video we can only speculate but this just doesn't feel "normal" or maybe I'm an old cynical fart now.
missed the Macca response, never mind...
If consistently being 7/10ths faster than you is a "mind game", then yes Jenson, Lewis was playing "games" with you.
PhillipM wrote:If 50g is likely to kill, and '100g is impossible to survive', why do we have records of well over 200g being survived?
It's only a significant impact if it's experienced for a significant amount of time, with no crumple zone, the exposure time is likely to have been brief. It's also probably lateral or axial loading, which the body is pretty good at dealing with.
1) You removed a key word from '100g is impossible to survive'
2) we only have one record of someone surviving a 200g impact (that I can find), and those records are invariably paired with stories saying "this is pretty much impossible to do, it's incredible that someone survived an impact that violent, it's a 1 in a million chance to manage that".
Okay, how about that 25g loading which you say is likely to cause injury yet people harnesses correctly in seats have been recorded as taking it laterally or longitudinally (rearwards) for minutes at a time? Orientation and timescale matters as much, if not more, than the outright loading.
Like I say, 30G is not a massive impact if taken for a brief enough period. Given it's the suspension hitting a concrete wall it was probably single digit milliseconds.
Tim.Wright wrote:Strange that they state that the cause was a gust of wind while claiming that there was no loss in aerodynamic pressure...
I read that bit as saying the car showed signs of being unsettled by the gusty wind, but the aero performed as expected. For instance there would have been a reduction in aero pressure (as opposed to significant loss) due to the car slowing for the corner, and also when braking during the accident.
I also wonder about the accuracy and sampling rates of the sensors. Exaggerating the point, the ride hight sensors and suspension sensors would record every mm of wheel movement if the car balance was unsettled. However those fluctuations might not disrupt the mass flow under the floor enough to register on the pressure taps.
"We can also disclose that no electrical discharge or irregularity of any kind occurred in the car's ERS system, either before, during or after the incident," it added.
"That last point refutes the erroneous rumours that have spread recently to the effect that Fernando was rendered unconscious by an electrical fault. That is simply not true.
"Our data clearly shows that he was downshifting while applying full brake pressure right up to the moment of the first impact - something that clearly would not have been possible had he been unconscious at the time.
Tim.Wright wrote:Strange that they state that the cause was a gust of wind while claiming that there was no loss in aerodynamic pressure...
I read that bit as saying the car showed signs of being unsettled by the gusty wind, but the aero performed as expected.
I agree. If you read the story on AutoSport about the Sainz Jr crash he says that the winds were unpredictable and had a big impact on the cars balance.
So seems like a unlucky gathering of unpleasent circumstances.
I can understand the whole ERS-electroshock buzz going around though. It was taken a bit too far, but there is some reasoning to it; the MP4-30 since first testing seemed to have problems on having the electrical units working together with the 'classic' ICE unit. They had to investigate and find a solution. Offcourse, this raises attention to Mclaren's electrical systems. Also, there were some rumours that Mclaren did not run with ERS at all at times - again, more food to have people's minds 'caught' in electrical issues with the new highly anticipated Mclaren.
Given the fact a freak accident occured and there were some unlogical explenations, people try to find a logical answer to an illogical event. Reports that a driver was unconscious and the car seemed uncontrollable are other 'coals' to the fire that is the idea of a 'electroshock' issue. Above all; electroshock is not entirely impossible.
So i can understand the ideas and theories of electroshock, because there seemed no logical explenations at the time.
As for the actual truth; it was a simple freak accident indeed.
Gushing winds can have quite hefty effects on moving vehicles, anybody that ever drove a car when having huge sidewinds will agree. It doesn't matter if it's a big or a small car, you'll feel it vividly. It hits the most when overtaking a freight truck; aside the car there is no issue [because the truck catches the wind] but then you pass it and suddenly you get a hit at the steering wheel because of the sidewind suddenly catching your car. Same when driving on the freeway when there are soundbarriers and then entering an open field.
Thus, wind effects do play a big role. Sudden unexpected winds are indeed hard to respond to. F1 cars are aimed at aerodynamics, thus are hugely effected by aerodynamic 'changes'. Winds have huge effects on F1 cars, thus a sudden change will cause a big effect.
As for arguments as "how can a wind be of effect when they recorded no aerodynamic loss" ; because the Macca never had aerodynamic loss; it's the opposite; it was given sudden aerodynamic 'overdose'.
The tire mark isn't that weird either, it's not uncommon that just 1 wheel locks up under braking; it was an 'inside' wheel lockup, gravity affects F1 cars too thus turning to the right generates more load on the outer wheels compared to the inner wheels.
It is not neccesarily illogical that Fernando did not respond to marshalls initially. He does not have to be unconscious.
Have you ever had a deeply stinging pain in your body? I have, and like Fernando, to the back vertebraes. It's one of the most extreme pains and nerve overdoses you can experience. I had a stinging pain in the back and it took up all my attention and i did not notice a single thing happening around me. People talking to me or asking me something, responding to the visible pain on my face. Untill the overload of nerve 'messeges' sent to the brain get less, then the mind can respond to the surroundings better.
It's logical in back pain circumstances to avoid straining the body. thus getting help to get out of the vehicle isn't odd either.
Additionaly, it's logical to be checkup in the hospital. First of all out of standard procedures, next because of possbile concerns for whatever reason.
It's good to see Fernando smile. Glad this thing is over now.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
Tim.Wright wrote:Strange that they state that the cause was a gust of wind while claiming that there was no loss in aerodynamic pressure...
I read that bit as saying the car showed signs of being unsettled by the gusty wind, but the aero performed as expected.
I agree. If you read the story on AutoSport about the Sainz Jr crash he says that the winds were unpredictable and had a big impact on the cars balance.
Rosberg said the same thing. He said it was very unpredictable and made testing difficult.
what if electrical discharge occurred post accident after mechanical/electrical failure and thats the condition that some reported he was initially in.Without video we can only speculate but this just doesn't feel "normal" or maybe I'm an old cynical fart now.
