Technical comments only: car to car crash safety

[Jolle]

The only way I can see at the moment, with current technology, making cars have any chance in a crash like this, is making the whole tub a giant helmet.

Helmets are designed to withstand a impact from both a flat or a sharp impact, because the hard outer shell. This would mean having the current survival cel sitting in a thick layer of foam (of several decimeters) and a layer of a mix of carbon and kevlar to take the impact.

This would mean a radical change of the look of single seaters, with cars looking more like those of the early eighties then the narrow arrows of the last decades.

[Jolle]

They're only effective if they make contact with something, however. A nose from another car will fit between the current lateral crash tubes and so render them ineffective.

Quite true. There are certainly a lot of improvements to be made in side impact structure's shape, form and size. Maybe not immediately to the point of making a crash like Hubert's survivable, but less severe crashes for sure.

Every structure has a specific use and/or crash in mind. The impact structure used now is to avoid serious injury in crashes suffered like Perez and Wendlinger in Monaco. Sheering into a tire barrier at 270+ at a shallow angle, is outside the design specs and at that type of crash, a side impact system is probably not needed because the heavy amount of energy is lost by the nose.

[nzjrs]

The bigger picture is that this wasn't like the Bianchi death, where it was obvious that large procedural changes could make large changes to the outcome, without increases in risk or decreases in safety margin in other areas - e.g. no cranes on the track while at racing speeds.

This feels like there is not scope for enormous improvements in design or procedure, and it's therefore likely that any actualized changes could be negative in similar or other crash situations.

[Just_a_fan]

I'm yet to be convinced that this weekend's crash was survivable, no matter what they did to the cars. At some point, the energy involved and the resultant accelerations imposed are just too much for the human body to deal with. Everything they do to the car has to limit the brain's movement within the skull to acceptable limits. Eventually, you just run out of room to give the required low acceleration figures because the cars are limited in size.

When we see the impacting car has lost its entire nose cone - either through it falling apart doing its job, or by being ripped off the tub by lateral loads, we have to wonder if the cars are at the limit of what can be achieved.

The track, and more specifically the barriers, need to be altered to prevent the bounce back that led to the collision. We need to remember that the bounce back is itself a potentially injury-inducing event because the driver is subjected to higher / longer / more complex acceleration loads than the simple straight-in-and-stop incidents.

[Jolle]

I'm yet to be convinced that this weekend's crash was survivable, no matter what they did to the cars. At some point, the energy involved and the resultant accelerations imposed are just too much for the human body to deal with. Everything they do to the car has to limit the brain's movement within the skull to acceptable limits. Eventually, you just run out of room to give the required low acceleration figures because the cars are limited in size.

When we see the impacting car has lost its entire nose cone - either through it falling apart doing its job, or by being ripped off the tub by lateral loads, we have to wonder if the cars are at the limit of what can be achieved.

The track, and more specifically the barriers, need to be altered to prevent the bounce back that led to the collision. We need to remember that the bounce back is itself a potentially injury-inducing event because the driver is subjected to higher / longer / more complex acceleration loads than the simple straight-in-and-stop incidents.

We see this in MotoGP as well, even with airbag suits, the best helmets, etcetera, most fatal accidents is where a driver is hit by another bike.

I think, not the type of barriers is the problem but the combination of Eau Rouge and Raidillon with no room for any mistakes. Just like after San Marino 1994 when there was the realisation that formula one was lucky for many years, it's the same for this corner. All the drivers that walked away from a crash there the past decades were lucky, there is a reason this happend here and not on Maggots and Beckets for instance. Just no room when it goes wrong. If the barriers were 10-15 meters further back, there wouldn't have been a problem.

[TNTHead]

I don't know if it is appropriate to share, but this crash analysis may contribute to a better understanding. It sums it up quite well if you ask me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJZ4SMShrJM&t=58s (until 1:26 only video footage before crash and animation, after 1:26 footage of the crash).

The steep partly blind hill, run off area without deceleration measures, worst case angle of collison all contributed to this fatal incident.

And what I also wonder: the rubbles of Alesi's crash where sharp carbon fibre parts, weren't they? Going away from DF cars to simpler cars without less fragile winglets may also reduce the risk of such an array of events.

[Big Tea]

The only thing I can see there that may have helped is angles on the barrier. If the barrier is set to angle a strike away from the track.
This then adds dangers of barrier ends and 'pinball' style compound strikes.

[ubuysa]

Although I suspect the side impact from Correa did the fatal damage, that's not the root cause IMO. The root cause is that the barrier did not hold on to Hubert's car but instead bounced it back towards the track.

What is needed I believe are barriers that collapse in a way that stop the car bouncing off, at any angle of impact.

Given the millions sloshing around in F1 and the technology in the cars, track barriers consisting of a few rows of old tyres is frankly prehistoric.

Sent using Tapatalk

[Big Tea]

Although I suspect the side impact from Correa did the fatal damage, that's not the root cause IMO. The root cause is that the barrier did not hold on to Hubert's car but instead bounced it back towards the track.

What is needed I believe are barriers that collapse in a way that stop the car bouncing off, at any angle of impact.

Given the millions sloshing around in F1 and the technology in the cars, track barriers consisting of a few rows of old tyres is frankly prehistoric.

Sent using Tapatalk

What happened to the (protec???) barrier that was water filed and dissipated force by venting the water?
They seemed to make an appearance then vanish

[izzy]

That 100G is the line for severe injury, such as ruptring aorta's and stuff... plus it's head on, not from the side, where seatbelts for instance doesn't give you any more room. At the moment there is no way to put, with this form factor, to put an extra 40 cm of impact structure next to the driver where another car will hit this. This structure should also work with a large range in weight, from just the survival cell with the driver (more or less what Hubert had) up to fully fuelled with all wheels, engine and body work.

I said 40cm lateral, total 1m of crush structure. That is quite doable on a car 4.5x1.8m. Yes at 100g it's severe injuries, sometime fatal but sometimes not. In safety, nothing is absolute it's all probabilities and percentages: more people saved. You don't give up because you can't save everybody.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I wonder if instead of designing against these "t-bone" collisions, they should design the cars to slide up and over the other car rather than crashing into the side. With the halo, this might be a safer option now.

[Shrieker]

When you look at the footage you can see that Correa tried to brake but locked up the wheels, a good distance from the impact.

That got me thinking. I don’t know how many times I have seen cars sliding into things with four smoking wheels. Drivers have the reflexes. But getting that brake point exactly right, especially on the unfamiliar surface outside the track seems to be nearly impossible. And within a few meters they are skidding on a patch of canvas and steel.

ABS has been banned from the track for sporting reasons. Yet in this case I think it could have made a big impact. You can slow a formula car down a lot in 80 meters, when braking on the limit. Would not prevent a crash but at least soften the impact. Plus ABS would allow steering which is impossible when locked up.

What if you install a dormant ABS system on the car which is enabled at the moment the car is detected to be outside of the track limits? I don’t know the capability of the current track limit detection, but I think it should be possible. Just to give the driver a bit help when he needs it without interfering with the racing itself.

Combine this with crash warning ? If the system picks up a high g event, all drivers are alerted with a flashing red light on their wheel, and granted abs automatically ?

[Just_a_fan]

I wonder if instead of designing against these "t-bone" collisions, they should design the cars to slide up and over the other car rather than crashing into the side. With the halo, this might be a safer option now.

Then you have an airborne car fired off in any random direction depending on the point and direction of impact. Where the car lands, and how, would determine whether others were also then involved. Imagine a car being fired up over the catch fencing, or even just up in to the fencing. The driver is likely to suffer just as badly plus you increase the risks to marshals and spectators.

The answer is to stop the bounce back that led to the T-boning impact. Of course, this sort of accident could still happen at other tracks - notably Monaco where there is no room to move barriers back. We have seen a number of crashes around Tabac, Swimming Pool and the Nouvelle Chicane over the years where speeds are high enough that a similar T-bone impact could be fatal.

Ultimately, the only way to make motorsport 100% safe is to stop doing it in the first place.

[roon]

The answer is to stop the bounce back that led to the T-boning impact. ... Ultimately, the only way to make motorsport 100% safe is to stop doing it in the first place.

Please respect the thread topic (safening car to car impacts, not only prevention) and the framework laid out in the OP.

-no sporting preferences
-debate upon physics

[ENGINE TUNER]

I wonder if instead of designing against these "t-bone" collisions, they should design the cars to slide up and over the other car rather than crashing into the side. With the halo, this might be a safer option now.

Then you have an airborne car fired off in any random direction depending on the point and direction of impact. Where the car lands, and how, would determine whether others were also then involved. Imagine a car being fired up over the catch fencing, or even just up in to the fencing. The driver is likely to suffer just as badly plus you increase the risks to marshals and spectators.

The answer is to stop the bounce back that led to the T-boning impact. Of course, this sort of accident could still happen at other tracks - notably Monaco where there is no room to move barriers back. We have seen a number of crashes around Tabac, Swimming Pool and the Nouvelle Chicane over the years where speeds are high enough that a similar T-bone impact could be fatal.

Ultimately, the only way to make motorsport 100% safe is to stop doing it in the first place.

Good point regarding airborne cars. Not a fully thought out idea on my part.