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.
Thinking about the "bounce back" problem, which is where the accident went from "big shunt" to tragedy, would a gravel trap between the track and tyres have helped? It would reduce the bounce back effect and, crucially, the oncoming car would also be slowed down because it would be driving along the gravel trap.
However, would a gravel trap cause other issues?
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
In response to the halo potentially limiting vision... it's the other way round anyways, isn't it? Coming up to the crest you don't really see what is happening 'below' your field of view, you're just looking at the sky - i know using racing games as reference is a bit silly but those who play them know that if someone crashes out of eau rouge/raidillon and is stranded there you'll most likely go into them.
Pause this video at 1:00 (i know it says eye level but it clearly isn't)
Even the camera that is on top of the helmet doesn't show what is happening past the crest/little apex on the left
Could explosive netting be added to the crash barriers that have the potential to bounce the car back into or close to the race track.
Sort of a net that would come from the top of the barrier from the moment on impact. Expanding rapidly then closing back in quickly around the area where the car is most likely to be trapping the car in a hopefully safer position.
Obviously this would reduce the time able to get to a driver or escape time when on fire but to me those are better options than being killed instantly by another car
Could explosive netting be added to the crash barriers that have the potential to bounce the car back into or close to the race track.
Sort of a net that would come from the top of the barrier from the moment on impact. Expanding rapidly then closing back in quickly around the area where the car is most likely to be trapping the car in a hopefully safer position.
Obviously this would reduce the time able to get to a driver or escape time when on fire but to me those are better options than being killed instantly by another car
I think redesigning high-risk areas of circuits to make them safer (more run-off) will be more feasible.
Could explosive netting be added to the crash barriers that have the potential to bounce the car back into or close to the race track.
Sort of a net that would come from the top of the barrier from the moment on impact. Expanding rapidly then closing back in quickly around the area where the car is most likely to be trapping the car in a hopefully safer position.
Obviously this would reduce the time able to get to a driver or escape time when on fire but to me those are better options than being killed instantly by another car
I think redesigning high-risk areas of circuits to make them safer (more run-off) will be more feasible.
The risk is the difference in speed between car one and car two. If you stop car one, even within the fencing, car two will hit that spot at max V. Getting the barriers further away from the track, with runoffs where you can't race (the cars were in the runoff when they collided), would make it less likely to have a racing car taking avoiding actions colliding with a car that just crashed into the barriers.
{You mean Correa? Going up Eau Rouge he was skidding at a 90 degree angle to the track. Halo or not he would be mostly looking at the barrier flashing by.}
Edit: just rewatched the footage and I am mistaken, thought I saw Correa loosing control on Eau rouge but it was the spin of Alesi.
Then I don’t know what Correa was doing on the run off area. But I don’t think the Halo has anything to do with it. Eau rouge is really very steep and it is impossible to see anything over the crest.
There's no amount of precaution that can cover all scenarios in a car to car crash in an open cockpit formula sadly. A car can flip (like it did yesterday), the cockpit/helmet area can still get a hit which would still be fatal.
That said, there are of course things that could be done to mitigate risks. As far as I'm aware, all cars have g sensors; just devise a system where transponders on the cars communicate with each other, relaying info about the track conditions just up ahead. If there's a high g impact, at the very least nearby cars should be alerted to the potential danger (by a flashing red light on the wheel for example). This would especially be useful around blind turns/crests. 1 second of warning in advance could've saved a life yesterday. We certainly have the technology to build a not so complicated automated crash warning system fed by g sensors or other means.
Education is that which allows a nation free, independent, reputable life, and function as a high society; or it condemns it to captivity and poverty.
-Atatürk
That said, there are of course things that could be done to mitigate risks. As far as I'm aware, all cars have g sensors; just devise a system where transponders on the cars communicate with each other, relaying info about the track conditions just up ahead. If there's a high g impact, at the very least nearby cars should be alerted to the potential danger (by a flashing red light on the wheel for example). This would especially be useful around blind turns/crests. 1 second of warning in advance could've saved a life yesterday. We certainly have the technology to build a not so complicated automated crash warning system.
Great idea. It'd be good in the rain/spray as well, thinking about Brazil a couple of years ago and Kimi and someone having a near miss.
If we take the Anthoine Hubert accident as a case study, there are a few things to consider:
-Anthoine Hubert already crashed side to side into barriers before the car to car crash. Meaning the side impact structures already were very much compromised, and possible none existent at all. Impact structures are made for "one time use only", meaning they crumble on impact. They are certainly not made, nor can they be made, for several consecutive impacts.
-Juan Manuel Correa crashed very unluckily into Hubert, right at cockpit area. That means Hubert's side crash impact structure did not got significantly involved even if he still had those. If the dice fell differently and Correa crashed more into the front or back of Hubert's car, not only would that have avoided hitting the vital cockpit area, but the car would probably been hit way less into the CoG, which would have resulted alot of the energy of the crash being transferred into Hubert's car spinning around, dissipating it that way. When we are dealing with odds, Correa hitting Hubert's car the way he did were very low odds.
-Correa's front impact crash structure completely got demolished, to the point his legs were easily visible. Now the front impact structure is made for extreme high deacceleration crashes. It being completely ripped off and not able to mitigate all damage to Correa tells you something about the impact involved and why the side impact structures, even if not damaged, even if at the cockpit area instead of the sidepod area, would probably not have made a difference. You'd effectively need the front structures as the side structures to mitigate fatal risk.
It will take the FIA long years of research to get an adequate answer to that. It's a very difficult matter to resolve, especially because as my good friend jjn9128 said, you'd need forensic research on this. And a lot actually. These cases are extremely rare (and thank god they are), and will probably involve changing the completely silhouette of the car, maybe adding a lot of additional crumble structure in the cockpit area, or some structure to glans off a T-boning car. But as said, it's difficult. We are speaking of a 300 km/h car-sized projectile.
There's no amount of precaution that can cover all scenarios in a car to car crash in an open cockpit formula sadly. A car can flip (like it did yesterday), the cockpit/helmet area can still get a hit which would still be fatal.
That said, there are of course things that could be done to mitigate risks. As far as I'm aware, all cars have g sensors; just devise a system where transponders on the cars communicate with each other, relaying info about the track conditions just up ahead. If there's a high g impact, at the very least nearby cars should be alerted to the potential danger (by a flashing red light on the wheel for example). This would especially be useful around blind turns/crests. 1 second of warning in advance could've saved a life yesterday. We certainly have the technology to build a not so complicated automated crash warning system fed by g sensors or other means.
Not necessarily just for impacts as that wouldn't have prevented Monger's collision for example... maybe for two cars having a large speed delta at a position of the track where they shouldn't ... would need a lot of fine tuning to avoid false positives of course.
According to AMuS who talked to FIA people the F2 cars get the same Zylon treatment as F1 chassis (which are rated for 230kph side impacts) with crash tests which are almost as strict as those for F1 - but even a fully intact F1 chassis that wouldn't have been damaged in the collision couldn't have prevented his death due to the forces involved
What about a rubber like material flexible fence along the crash boundaries, say 3/4 meters away from it at like an 30 degree angle or so to the surface that you can slide over when sliding of track, but will then pop back up so that when rebounding from the barrière you cannot return to track as in that direction the fence will not drop down under the cars weight.
Maybe it can even be a more rigid material but hidden in the track and then popping up only where needed (sensor based) to divert the rebounding car back away from track.
