Indy car windscreen

[J.A.W.]

Seems like, that if you're pinned in, by the halo when 180` inverted, you'll have no choice..
& that could well be a tad nerve-wracking, if'n when you can hear & smell - the juice sizzling away on close-by hot parts..

[Jolle]

Seems like, that if you're pinned in, by the halo when 180` inverted, you'll have no choice..
& that could well be a tad nerve-wracking, if'n when you can hear & smell - the juice sizzling away on close-by hot parts..

Even if you're boxed in (what so far isn't proven, there are indications that you're not), it's still safer to stay put, even when it's a tad nerve-wracking.

If we look at some crashes there drivers were boxed in, like Sainz in Russia, having the Halo might just be a little less nerve-wracking.

[strad]

Actually I believe there is a rule that they stay in the car till cleared to get out or be removed.
The most dangerous thing they can do is get out of their survival cell. Unless of course if they are on fire which as pointed out repeatedly is not nearly the danger it once was.

[AJI]

So, as most of us agree, staying in the car after an accident (or for any reason that the car stops on track) is the best option, why does there have to be a requirement for the driver to be able to get out quickly? Is this just a hangover from Lauda's accident?

[Jolle]

So, as most of us agree, staying in the car after an accident (or for any reason that the car stops on track) is the best option, why does there have to be a requirement for the driver to be able to get out quickly? Is this just a hangover from Lauda's accident?

It was even earlier, It was because of an accident of Jackie Stewart at the Belgium GP of 1966, where he crashed and he was stuck in his car. In those days the steering wheel was put in the car by the mechanics. There were no marshalls and a local farmer bolted him out. He burned his legs because of the acidic nature of the fuel in the time.

The requirement to get out of the car isn't completely obsolete, fires do still happen, just not because of an accident but at stand alone incidents. Hamilton in Germany in 2014 comes to mind.

But yes, it's a very old rule from a time before the fuel cel.

[jjn9128]

It was even earlier, It was because of an accident of Jackie Stewart at the Belgium GP of 1966, where he crashed and he was stuck in his car. In those days the steering wheel was put in the car by the mechanics. There were no marshalls and a local farmer bolted him out. He burned his legs because of the acidic nature of the fuel in the time.

With my pedants hat on he was actually pulled from the car and stripped out of his fuel soaked overalls by Graham Hill, before being put on a farmers truck and being discovered by a group of local nuns looking to assist.

You're correct fires still do happen, my recent memory is Palmer, Magnussen and Heidfeld (all in Enstone cars for some reason), but because of safety measures over the years the speed and ferocity with which the fire takes hold is different to the 60s and 70s. Old fuel tanks were riveted sheet aluminium and placed either side of the driver, so were prone to igniting from fairy minor collisions. Modern fuel bladders are kevlar, virtually impenetrable, and with various cut off valves which close to prevent the flow of fuel. Dixon's Indy500 crash last year highlights that - the engine and gearbox were sheared off but no fuel was spilled on track.

Modern overalls can also withstand higher temperatures without increasing body temperature significantly - off the top of my head at 1000C and the internal temp can't rise above 70C after 30s. While definitely unpleasant (I wouldn't want to test it) it makes fire more survivable than 40 years ago.

There's a reason drivers are told to stay put unless it's dangerous to do so - Nurburgring 2007 springs to mind.

[Jolle]

It was even earlier, It was because of an accident of Jackie Stewart at the Belgium GP of 1966, where he crashed and he was stuck in his car. In those days the steering wheel was put in the car by the mechanics. There were no marshalls and a local farmer bolted him out. He burned his legs because of the acidic nature of the fuel in the time.

With my pedants hat on he was actually pulled from the car and stripped out of his fuel soaked overalls by Graham Hill, before being put on a farmers truck and being discovered by a group of local nuns looking to assist.

You're correct fires still do happen, my recent memory is Palmer, Magnussen and Heidfeld (all in Enstone cars for some reason), but because of safety measures over the years the speed and ferocity with which the fire takes hold is different to the 60s and 70s. Old fuel tanks were riveted sheet aluminium and placed either side of the driver, so were prone to igniting from fairy minor collisions. Modern fuel bladders are kevlar, virtually impenetrable, and with various cut off valves which close to prevent the flow of fuel. Dixon's Indy500 crash last year highlights that - the engine and gearbox were sheared off but no fuel was spilled on track.

Modern overalls can also withstand higher temperatures without increasing body temperature significantly - off the top of my head at 1000C and the internal temp can't rise above 70C after 30s. While definitely unpleasant (I wouldn't want to test it) it makes fire more survivable than 40 years ago.

There's a reason drivers are told to stay put unless it's dangerous to do so - Nurburgring 2007 springs to mind.

That was my point indeed. Fired because of an accident just don't happen anymore and when they do (like Berger), marshals are right there. Fires that do happen are malfunctions and not crashes (so no upside down cars, etc etc)

The reason that drivers should stay put after a big crash is because of the chance of neck and back injuries. They have now for a couple of years a special seat so they can be lifted out stabilised and all.

Maybe the best test for the fuel cell was Donnelly's crash in 1990.

[Manoah2u]

fires are far from rare in f1, even today.
yes the intensity is much less as it was years ago, and safety has been improved vastly. but let's not stick our heads in the sand. even if it's true that it rarely happens after an accident.

[djos]

https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... a-fire.jpg
http://e1.365dm.com/15/10/16-9/20/rosbe ... 1030181359

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/wp-conte ... .36.06.png

http://e1.365dm.com/14/07/16-9/20/budap ... 0726153437

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDFBsUrXsAAbrZN.jpg
https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/ ... _HiRes.jpg

http://e1.365dm.com/11/08/660x350/Nick- ... 0801082343
https://cdn-0.motorsport.com/static/img ... 0/s1_1.jpg

https://cdn-1.motorsport.com/images/mgl ... s-fire.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIJW4qiXkAAGxGU.jpg

https://www.formula1.com/content/fom-we ... medium.jpg
https://cdn-8.motorsport.com/images/amp ... m-rs16.jpg

http://nextgen-auto.com/IMG/arton101730.jpg
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... n9zuko.png

https://www.formula1.com/content/fom-we ... 430139.jpg

https://hips.hearstapps.com/roa.h-cdn.c ... size=768:*
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/9 ... o_fire.jpg

http://www.topgear.com/india/images/sto ... 057450.jpg

https://badgergp-x9ecz75q73bk.netdna-ss ... 30x420.jpg

http://www.thestar.com.my/~/media/onlin ... 85231E7111

http://www.thisisf1.com/wp-content/uplo ... 2010-1.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/ ... 64x639.jpg

fires are far from rare in f1, even today.
yes the intensity is much less as it was years ago, and safety has been improved vastly. but let's not stick our heads in the sand. even if it's true that it rarely happens after an accident.

Those pics are Red herrings mate, not a single one of those fires was the result of a crash, they are all straight forward engine failures.

[Formula Wrong]

fires are far from rare in f1, even today.
yes the intensity is much less as it was years ago, and safety has been improved vastly. but let's not stick our heads in the sand. even if it's true that it rarely happens after an accident.

Those pics are Red herrings mate, not a single one of those fires was the result of a crash, they are all straight forward engine failures.

Furthermore, if a fire starts because of an engine failure it doesn't immediately make the whole car turn into a fireball.

[Jolle]

For you young people out here who have never seen a real F1 fuel fire, this is the last one ever because of an accident. As you can see, fire marshals were on the scene to stop the fire well within the safety window of the drivers suit. Also, no jumping out of the car! In fact, with a crash so severe that the fuel cel would rupture, better stay in the car because (especially with the modern standerds), the fuel cell won't be the only thing that is ruptured. Think neck, spine, lungs, brain, etc.

and remember, this was 29 years ago....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXKTGz9txTw

[NathanOlder]

For you young people out here who have never seen a real F1 fuel fire, this is the last one ever because of an accident. As you can see, fire marshals were on the scene to stop the fire well within the safety window of the drivers suit. Also, no jumping out of the car! In fact, with a crash so severe that the fuel cel would rupture, better stay in the car because (especially with the modern standerds), the fuel cell won't be the only thing that is ruptured. Think neck, spine, lungs, brain, etc.

and remember, this was 29 years ago....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXKTGz9txTw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx1DrzqVkD4

This ticks 3 boxes.

Fire , Crash & after 1989.

I guess it wont count for some reason. Maybe it wasnt a "proper" fuel fire. Or it was only practice ?

I'm just pointing out that fires have happened since 1989 because of a crash, as Jolle was saying. I guess really I could downvote your post as it's inaccurate, I guess it could be classed as useful due to the video link being a "proper" fuel fire.

anyway, 1 thing i'd like to ask, Why do we see a load of fires in crashes in IndyCar ? Do they not use a fuel cell like in F1 ? seems to happen a fair bit on the ovals.

[Jolle]

For you young people out here who have never seen a real F1 fuel fire, this is the last one ever because of an accident. As you can see, fire marshals were on the scene to stop the fire well within the safety window of the drivers suit. Also, no jumping out of the car! In fact, with a crash so severe that the fuel cel would rupture, better stay in the car because (especially with the modern standerds), the fuel cell won't be the only thing that is ruptured. Think neck, spine, lungs, brain, etc.

and remember, this was 29 years ago....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXKTGz9txTw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx1DrzqVkD4

This ticks 3 boxes.

Fire , Crash & after 1989.

I guess it wont count for some reason. Maybe it wasnt a "proper" fuel fire. Or it was only practice ?

I'm just pointing out that fires have happened since 1989 because of a crash, as Jolle was saying. I guess really I could downvote your post as it's inaccurate, I guess it could be classed as useful due to the video link being a "proper" fuel fire.

anyway, 1 thing i'd like to ask, Why do we see a load of fires in crashes in IndyCar ? Do they not use a fuel cell like in F1 ? seems to happen a fair bit on the ovals.

Come on, that was a small burn off from the fuel filler, nothing serious or remotely dangerous. It even looks like it stopped by itself when the fuel left there was burned away (after a few seconds). A rupture of the fuel tank is the real danger, not a few drops here and there.

[NathanOlder]

For you young people out here who have never seen a real F1 fuel fire, this is the last one ever because of an accident. As you can see, fire marshals were on the scene to stop the fire well within the safety window of the drivers suit. Also, no jumping out of the car! In fact, with a crash so severe that the fuel cel would rupture, better stay in the car because (especially with the modern standerds), the fuel cell won't be the only thing that is ruptured. Think neck, spine, lungs, brain, etc.

and remember, this was 29 years ago....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXKTGz9txTw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx1DrzqVkD4

This ticks 3 boxes.

Fire , Crash & after 1989.

I guess it wont count for some reason. Maybe it wasnt a "proper" fuel fire. Or it was only practice ?

I'm just pointing out that fires have happened since 1989 because of a crash, as Jolle was saying. I guess really I could downvote your post as it's inaccurate, I guess it could be classed as useful due to the video link being a "proper" fuel fire.

anyway, 1 thing i'd like to ask, Why do we see a load of fires in crashes in IndyCar ? Do they not use a fuel cell like in F1 ? seems to happen a fair bit on the ovals.

Come on, that was a small burn off from the fuel filler, nothing serious or remotely dangerous. It even looks like it stopped by itself when the fuel left there was burned away (after a few seconds). A rupture of the fuel tank is the real danger, not a few drops here and there.

As expected, it was a crash, it was a fire, it was 2004, it took a fire extinguisher to put it out/control it but it didnt count. ok.

[Formula Wrong]

As expected, it was a crash, it was a fire, it was 2004, it took a fire extinguisher to put it out/control it but it didnt count. ok.

Obviously it was a fire after a crash, yes. Fires still happen, but the point is that they're not as big of a danger as they were in the past because the whole car doesn't suddenly explode into flames as Berger's did (or, more famously, Lauda's Ferrari at the Nürburgring). Instead, the driver usually has more than enough time to get out.

In an even more recent example, Mark Webber didn't even seem to be in a hurry when getting out of his Red Bull during the 2013 Korean GP, even though the fire was fairly big: