Chassis Improvements - Grosjean accident

[Just_a_fan]

Apart from that, you have to take the drivers out of the equitation.

I agree, the drivers shouldn't be horsing around on track...



(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[Jolle]

Apart from that, you have to take the drivers out of the equitation.

I agree, the drivers shouldn't be horsing around on track...



(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Autocorrectness gone made

[Edax]

Perhaps a much better investment would be a warning light that there is a car next to you, like most road cars have in their mirrors nowadays. I think we see at least one crash per raceweekend because someone misses a car in his blind spot. In this case it would have prevented Strolls rollover as well.

The light would be on constantly in the first few corners of the first lap and so wouldn't really help. How far away would the other car have to be to prevent the light coming on? 1ft, 3ft, 10ft?

Would there be a rule that if the light is on then you can't move left or right? In effect you've just mandated that everyone follows nose to tail through the first few corners.

The way I see it the light or audio signal would serve as an caution that there is something there. Like a spotter in oval racing. It is up to the driver to decide how to deal with it. I would attach any regulations to it. It is just an aid.

Same as in the road car. The system does not prevents you from doing anything. It just signals that you better check your surroundings thoroughly before doing so.

I think that would go a long way in preventing the accidents where a driver completely oversees another car, which seems to has been the case in many recent accidents.

[Big Tea]

Perhaps a much better investment would be a warning light that there is a car next to you, like most road cars have in their mirrors nowadays. I think we see at least one crash per raceweekend because someone misses a car in his blind spot. In this case it would have prevented Strolls rollover as well.

The light would be on constantly in the first few corners of the first lap and so wouldn't really help. How far away would the other car have to be to prevent the light coming on? 1ft, 3ft, 10ft?

Would there be a rule that if the light is on then you can't move left or right? In effect you've just mandated that everyone follows nose to tail through the first few corners.

The way I see it the light or audio signal would serve as an caution that there is something there. Like a spotter in oval racing. It is up to the driver to decide how to deal with it. I would attach any regulations to it. It is just an aid.

Same as in the road car. The system does not prevents you from doing anything. It just signals that you better check your surroundings thoroughly before doing so.

I think that would go a long way in preventing the accidents where a driver completely oversees another car, which seems to has been the case in many recent accidents.

I don't think the problem is drivers knowing there is someone there, I think it is often a matter of misjudging that they are going to give way, or possibly their exact position. anyone who rides with a helmet on often can not see to that position, but those who do not instinctively know there is something there tend not to ride long.

As others have pointed out, if they know they will not be hurt, they will push the limit. (NOT saying it is too safe, it can never be)

[nzjrs]

Perhaps a much better investment would be a warning light that there is a car next to you, like most road cars have in their mirrors nowadays. I think we see at least one crash per raceweekend because someone misses a car in his blind spot. In this case it would have prevented Strolls rollover as well.

The light would be on constantly in the first few corners of the first lap and so wouldn't really help. How far away would the other car have to be to prevent the light coming on? 1ft, 3ft, 10ft?

Would there be a rule that if the light is on then you can't move left or right? In effect you've just mandated that everyone follows nose to tail through the first few corners.

The way I see it the light or audio signal would serve as an caution that there is something there. Like a spotter in oval racing. It is up to the driver to decide how to deal with it. I would attach any regulations to it. It is just an aid.

Same as in the road car. The system does not prevents you from doing anything. It just signals that you better check your surroundings thoroughly before doing so.

I think that would go a long way in preventing the accidents where a driver completely oversees another car, which seems to has been the case in many recent accidents.

What's the latency you would require of such a system?

[Jolle]

The light would be on constantly in the first few corners of the first lap and so wouldn't really help. How far away would the other car have to be to prevent the light coming on? 1ft, 3ft, 10ft?

Would there be a rule that if the light is on then you can't move left or right? In effect you've just mandated that everyone follows nose to tail through the first few corners.

The way I see it the light or audio signal would serve as an caution that there is something there. Like a spotter in oval racing. It is up to the driver to decide how to deal with it. I would attach any regulations to it. It is just an aid.

Same as in the road car. The system does not prevents you from doing anything. It just signals that you better check your surroundings thoroughly before doing so.

I think that would go a long way in preventing the accidents where a driver completely oversees another car, which seems to has been the case in many recent accidents.

I don't think the problem is drivers knowing there is someone there, I think it is often a matter of misjudging that they are going to give way, or possibly their exact position. anyone who rides with a helmet on often can not see to that position, but those who do not instinctively know there is something there tend not to ride long.

As others have pointed out, if they know they will not be hurt, they will push the limit. (NOT saying it is too safe, it can never be)

apart from this being a driver aid, it has many flaws. As we've seen in the scramble in the first few corners, the speed difference between cars is to big sometimes to rely on a kind of radar/lidar system to monitor blindspots. Plus such a system doesn't work with cars tangling due to failures.

while in general active safety systems work well on the road (like airbags, EPS, blind spot monitors), they are often dangerous on the racetrack. By principle you should solve car safety by passive systems (like the HALO, helmets, safety cell, barriers, etc).

[Just_a_fan]

Grosjean crashed because did what he always does - forgets that there are other cars on the track with him. His dive across the full width of the track was stupid. It would be stupid on lap 5, on lap one after the first turn of the race it was just plain old double stupid. It was Spa 2012 all over again but this time only he suffered the consequences. That he appears not to have learnt anything in 8 years is the big issue here.

Were it not for the spectacular fireball and his lucky escape therefrom, we'd all be saying "he's an idiot, again" and the FIA would probably be looking at giving him a slap.

[Rodak]

Instead of mirrors perhaps have two cameras and a small fixed screen on each side of the cockpit. The cameras could be fairly wide angle to give good sighting.......

[nzjrs]

Instead of mirrors perhaps have two cameras and a small fixed screen on each side of the cockpit. The cameras could be fairly wide angle to give good sighting.......

Any digital system adds latency - how much that additional latency is a problem would have to be evaluated. For example, 50-100ms latency at 200km/h is ~3-6m.

IMO Mirrors are a better engineering solution.

[Rodak]

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but when I was racing FF I remember when I got on the straights it was a chance to check my mirrors. I've been impressed with the in-car shots that superimpose a rear video shot in the middle of the dash and thought that type of stuff might be useful....

[Big Tea]

Ordinary folk manage fine with mirrors amongst utter idiots and inattentive dozers where you can touch the other cars by sticking your hand out the window, do the 20 best drivers in the world really need anything ease?

If the mirrors are not good enough, fix that. Bigger or vibration mounted or what ever it takes, but no tech is going to be better than a tenth of a second glance in a mirror.

[Rodak]

Instead of mirrors perhaps have two cameras and a small fixed screen on each side of the cockpit. The cameras could be fairly wide angle to give good sighting.......

Any digital system adds latency - how much that additional latency is a problem would have to be evaluated. For example, 50-100ms latency at 200km/h is ~3-6m.

IMO Mirrors are a better engineering solution.

Thinking about this, the latency times you reference are sort of in the range of internet times; with an onboard system it seems the times would be very small. Am I wrong?

[nzjrs]

Instead of mirrors perhaps have two cameras and a small fixed screen on each side of the cockpit. The cameras could be fairly wide angle to give good sighting.......

Any digital system adds latency - how much that additional latency is a problem would have to be evaluated. For example, 50-100ms latency at 200km/h is ~3-6m.

IMO Mirrors are a better engineering solution.

Thinking about this, the latency times you reference are sort of in the range of internet times; with an onboard system it seems the times would be very small. Am I wrong?

Transmission time isn't significant, it's mostly coming from elsewhere.

A good starting point to estimate this (assuming they do no image processing) is 1/camera-fps plus the display latency (a good LCD is ~20ms). Addition because it's going to be asynchronous and worst case is you have to wait a full frame for the display update and a full camera frame too.

Any other processing thing they do (badly) in the middle will add a couple ms - saving, scaling, etc.

Then from experience I added another few ms as a fudge factor.

[PlatinumZealot]

The camera spots can be placed at look over and behind the rear wheels.
The driver can have contextural screens placed behind the steering wheel, like the return of the dash board. Akin to the Williams. Should be good enough to see the required detail.

On the Armco. I am sure if f1 funded some research into it, a cost effective solution can be found. Armco is great in that it is cheap and easy to deploy. The steel barriers are mostly there to stop the vehicle more than protect anyone inside it however. It certainly was not made for race cars; more likely semi-trucks come to think of it.

There is a barrier similar to armco that has crash structures set behind it. Anyone recall what it is?

[gambler]

I saw Scarb post some stuff about a crash test with a tub made of "grass", didn't do well, however it occured to me that safer barriers may could be constructed of hemp material, I don't know if it is cost prohibitive, but hell I agree Platnum, most trackside barriers are to say the least sharp and knarley.