Technical comments only: car to car crash safety

[Just_a_fan]

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 prevention) and the framework laid out in the OP.

-no sporting preferences
-debate upon physics

Ok. Bubble wrap the cars so that the bubbles burst to take out the energy. Sadly, I think drivers will crash on purpose in order to get the noise. Everyone loves popping bubble wrap.

Silly thread demanding the ignoring of the methods used to prevent impacts in favour of debating methods of mitigating the effects of the impact. Prevention is better than cure, surely.

[subcritical71]

Has there been any thought to implementing SAFER barriers (https://mwrsf.unl.edu/safer.html)? These are designed to absorb energy without deflecting the car back onto the track. Used heavily on IndyCar and Nascar sanctioned tracks.

I know this technology has made it to a few F1 tracks.

[Edax]

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 prevention) and the framework laid out in the OP.

-no sporting preferences
-debate upon physics

If you want to debate the physics. This is how I think it works.

Imagine a car (A) traveling at 70 m/s (250 km/hr) hitting a stationary car (B). Say the energy transfer is symmetric and conserved so that both cars end up with a speed of 35 m/s. So car A needs to slow down to 35 m/s while car B needs to speed up to 35 m/s.

If you assume the upper limit of what a F1 driver can endure is 100g. Then the time of the transfer must not be below 0.0035 seconds.

Applying a linear acceleration to both cars: Due to the speed differential car A will travel 1.8 meters and car B will travel 0.6 meters in that time.

The balance (1.2 m) needs to be taken up by a crumple zone.

Lots of assumptions but I think the basic argument is solid. And that tells that if you want to avoid racing track-wide styrofoam blocks, you better make the part about avoiding these accidents part of the solution space.

[izzy]

Has there been any thought to implementing SAFER barriers (https://mwrsf.unl.edu/safer.html)? These are designed to absorb energy without deflecting the car back onto the track. Used heavily on IndyCar and Nascar sanctioned tracks.

I know this technology has made it to a few F1 tracks.

yes in F1 it's called Tecpro, and yes it absorbs/converts energy whereas tyres store energy of course and return it to the car with a delay. it should definitely be part of the solution. It doesn't have to be everywhere. It's used in Monaco already.

[izzy]

If you want to debate the physics. This is how I think it works.

Imagine a car (A) traveling at 70 m/s (250 km/hr) hitting a stationary car (B). Say the energy transfer is symmetric and conserved so that both cars end up with a speed of 35 m/s. So car A needs to slow down to 35 m/s while car B needs to speed up to 35 m/s.

If you assume the upper limit of what a F1 driver can endure is 100g. Then the time of the transfer must not be below 0.0035 seconds.

Applying a linear acceleration to both cars: Due to the speed differential car A will travel 1.8 meters and car B will travel 0.6 meters in that time.

The balance (1.2 m) needs to be taken up by a crumple zone.

Lots of assumptions but I think the basic argument is solid. And that tells that if you want to avoid racing track-wide styrofoam blocks, you better make the part about avoiding these accidents part of the solution space.

I did some similar physics and it's the way to discuss it imo. We ought to adjust for the difference in energy between 70-35 m/s and 35-0, strictly speaking, but anyway I got to a similar area. There are two crumple zones to contribute tho - one in the nose of the striking car and one in the side of the struck car. These could add up to 1m or more, if the sport got determined about it.

[Jolle]

If you want to debate the physics. This is how I think it works.

Imagine a car (A) traveling at 70 m/s (250 km/hr) hitting a stationary car (B). Say the energy transfer is symmetric and conserved so that both cars end up with a speed of 35 m/s. So car A needs to slow down to 35 m/s while car B needs to speed up to 35 m/s.

If you assume the upper limit of what a F1 driver can endure is 100g. Then the time of the transfer must not be below 0.0035 seconds.

Applying a linear acceleration to both cars: Due to the speed differential car A will travel 1.8 meters and car B will travel 0.6 meters in that time.

The balance (1.2 m) needs to be taken up by a crumple zone.

Lots of assumptions but I think the basic argument is solid. And that tells that if you want to avoid racing track-wide styrofoam blocks, you better make the part about avoiding these accidents part of the solution space.

I did some similar physics and it's the way to discuss it imo. We ought to adjust for the difference in energy between 70-35 m/s and 35-0, strictly speaking, but anyway I got to a similar area. There are two crumple zones to contribute tho - one in the nose of the striking car and one in the side of the struck car. These could add up to 1m or more, if the sport got determined about it.

there is also another option, and that is deflection. if the sides of a car are designed less flat, a sleeper angle from the seat to the toes, the hitting car would deflect and pass the stationary car, reducing de- and acceleration considerably. This could even be done with a titanium bar from tip of the survival cel to the crash structure tubes. a bit like a side halo, the salo....

[izzy]

there is also another option, and that is deflection. if the sides of a car are designed less flat, a sleeper angle from the seat to the toes, the hitting car would deflect and pass the stationary car, reducing de- and acceleration considerably. This could even be done with a titanium bar from tip of the survival cel to the crash structure tubes. a bit like a side halo, the salo....

The Salo, i like it Or Sidewinder?? Where are the Americans? and deflection is generally good isn't it. The only thing is: if the angle is random, it'd need to be dynamic in some way

[Jolle]

there is also another option, and that is deflection. if the sides of a car are designed less flat, a sleeper angle from the seat to the toes, the hitting car would deflect and pass the stationary car, reducing de- and acceleration considerably. This could even be done with a titanium bar from tip of the survival cel to the crash structure tubes. a bit like a side halo, the salo....

The Salo, i like it Or Sidewinder?? Where are the Americans? and deflection is generally good isn't it. The only thing is: if the angle is random, it'd need to be dynamic in some way

No dynamics. Safety features are KISS, else they fail. Only a hit in a 90 degree on the salo itself will not deflect the cars, but then the side impact structure does it's job, crumples and then the angle is less then 90, so the cars deflect.

[Just_a_fan]

There are two crumple zones to contribute tho - one in the nose of the striking car and one in the side of the struck car. These could add up to 1m or more, if the sport got determined about it.

Currently the side of the car doesn't give much protection in a T-bone incident unless the impacting car's nose hits one of the lateral crash structures. If this doesn't happen, the impact is absorbed by the impacting car's front impact structure (the nose cone), with the impacted car's chassis having to rely on the anti-penetration panel to keep the tub intact. All of the deceleration is done by the impacting car's nose, in effect. The anti-penetration panel is having to take a lot of load without splitting and this is probably the weak point in the system. The F2 cars pass the same crash tests as F1 cars do so we can be confident that if that accident had involved two F1 cars, we would be mourning an F1 driver today.

To add additional energy absorption in to the cars, we'd need to make the noses longer and / or add some panels on the side of the tub. I would suggest that longer noses would be easy if perhaps aesthetically unwelcome to many. Side panels would be easy to add but would change the aero designs of the car quite a bit - in effect the sidepods would be moved outwards and the gap between the sidepods and the turning vanes would disappear.

How well the side panels would work is somewhat dependent on the shape of the impacting nose cone, along with the stiffness of the side panel's outer skin. A stiff panel with a crushable core behind would help to prevent a simple penetration and would maximise the area over which the impact load was absorbed.

It's worth noting that the impacting car's nose was gone after the accident. Either it was totally crushed or it was ripped off by a lateral load. In either case, it left the impacting car driver's feet exposed to injury. I'm reminded of Kubica's crash in Canada in 2007 where the nose hit a concrete wall at a 45 degree angle (approximately), having glanced off an earlier wall impact that sheared off the front right suspension, and was totally destroyed. The concrete wall panel that he hit was moved backwards by the impact too, such was the energy involved. This would have been a similar speed to the Spa incident. Indeed, the whole accident is remarkably similar, except the wall was another car at Spa. It's no surprise that the F2 car was unable to protect the driver in such an impact. I'm not sure an open wheeled single seater ever could in such a circumstance.

[Sieper]

Maybe high tech solutions can be considered as well. A lot of thought is already going into autonomous road cars, what If all cars get a chip and cm accurate gps tracking. As soon as a car hits the crash boundary (or even before, If the trajectory and speed make it inevitable) the approaching cars get slowed down and steered out of the rebound path automatically via software alghoritms.

Correa could not see what happened over the crest, and in a case where the driver can see it it might not be humanly possible to react in time, software can though. And software can make the right choice (based on data, trajectories) whilst humans can make mistake (and need .2 of a second te react).

This will be a humungous task but it might be an option that could help prevent, or at least lower impact speeds.

[Jolle]

Maybe high tech solutions can be considered as well. A lot of thought is already going into autonomous road cars, what If all cars get a chip and cm accurate gps tracking. As soon as a car hits the crash boundary (or even before, If the trajectory and speed make it inevitable) the approaching cars get slowed down and steered out of the rebound path automatically via software alghoritms.

Correa could not see what happened over the crest, and in a case where the driver can see it it might not be humanly possible to react in time, software can though. And software can make the right choice (based on data, trajectories) whilst humans can make mistake (and need .2 of a second te react).

This will be a humungous task but it might be an option that could help prevent, or at least lower impact speeds.

Good idea but this tech is still years away from any kind of deployment. You need lydar seeing all of the track action from different sides, GPS indeed, AI and a bulletproof local 5G network, in-between 100.000+ handsets sending data in the grandstands, working from the rain in Suzuka to the streets and deflections of Monaco.

[Sieper]

And even then, it will not be 100% indeed in such places where there simply is insufficient time in all cases. But these crashes are just so horrible and it feels it should not be needed, If preventable in Any way.

[subcritical71]

Has there been any thought to implementing SAFER barriers (https://mwrsf.unl.edu/safer.html)? These are designed to absorb energy without deflecting the car back onto the track. Used heavily on IndyCar and Nascar sanctioned tracks.

I know this technology has made it to a few F1 tracks.

yes in F1 it's called Tecpro, and yes it absorbs/converts energy whereas tyres store energy of course and return it to the car with a delay. it should definitely be part of the solution. It doesn't have to be everywhere. It's used in Monaco already.

They are different systems, one uses steel and foam and the other some sort of plastic/composite with reinforcement. And I've seen a few TecPro barrier crashes where the drivers are going under the barrier!? They need to figure that out before it is further deployed.

[mcjamweasel]

Has there been any thought to implementing SAFER barriers (https://mwrsf.unl.edu/safer.html)? These are designed to absorb energy without deflecting the car back onto the track. Used heavily on IndyCar and Nascar sanctioned tracks.

I know this technology has made it to a few F1 tracks.

yes in F1 it's called Tecpro, and yes it absorbs/converts energy whereas tyres store energy of course and return it to the car with a delay. it should definitely be part of the solution. It doesn't have to be everywhere. It's used in Monaco already.

They are different systems, one uses steel and foam and the other some sort of plastic/composite with reinforcement. And I've seen a few TecPro barrier crashes where the drivers are going under the barrier!? They need to figure that out before it is further deployed.

Surely there's an easy solution to that - sink the barrier into a trench so that extends below the level of the surface. In fact, that seems like such an easy solution that there must be a simple flaw that I'm overlooking - maybe just the cost?

[roon]

Maybe high tech solutions can be considered as well. A lot of thought is already going into autonomous road cars, what If all cars get a chip and cm accurate gps tracking. As soon as a car hits the crash boundary (or even before, If the trajectory and speed make it inevitable) the approaching cars get slowed down and steered out of the rebound path automatically via software alghoritms.

Correa could not see what happened over the crest, and in a case where the driver can see it it might not be humanly possible to react in time, software can though. And software can make the right choice (based on data, trajectories) whilst humans can make mistake (and need .2 of a second te react).

This will be a humungous task but it might be an option that could help prevent, or at least lower impact speeds.

Good idea but this tech is still years away from any kind of deployment. You need lydar seeing all of the track action from different sides, GPS indeed, AI and a bulletproof local 5G network, in-between 100.000+ handsets sending data in the grandstands, working from the rain in Suzuka to the streets and deflections of Monaco.

How well does the current telemetry feed fare? I've read the cars send packets of data at the pitwall, maybe distinct points along the track as well. Currently is there a continuous data feed from the cars aside from radio and video?

A simple iteration could be based on existing accel data, which could trigger a warning light on approaching cars' steering wheels.

The racetrack as a closed course has some inherent benefits. Track geometry is all well documented in 3D, teams rely heavily upon their track models. Some of the vision data can be acquired trackside and thus wired.