Next Steps In Safety

[holeindalip]

Road cars have had backup cameras for years, I don’t know why they can’t just use cameras for their mirrors and flash or an indicator onscreen or a beep in each ear to determine car on left or right, the fire is a tough one, idk if they have impact sensors that kill the fuel pump instantly, definitely wasn’t a full 100 kilos, definitely more than just a couple of kilos

[joshuagore]

I think the next logical step should be some means of speed removal or recovery in the event of fire. I see this in the form of a release system for the belts, and wheel which might unlock to a pivotable position where it can move up and out of the way with minimal force. Maybe this is triggered remotely by the team or some safety crew as they pull up, a sort of abort button(motogp airbags are mostly trusted, and we all drive around with airbags, so we can imagine something as reliable that wouldn't go during the race). This way we don't need to rely on the driver to pull their belts upon serious collision or remove the wheel. Maybe even combo this with a universal tether or pull point integrated into the suit? I wouldn't want to imagine what we would be talking about today if Grosjean wasn't conscious. This should probably be combo'd with some uprated gear for those first at the scene, as they were completely unprepared to lean into a burning car for any period of time as their faces and hands were improperly protected.

I'm not against the suggestions here to build a stronger box, but if all around that box there are flames, and you might have survived but be stuck in those flames.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Totally agree re: stranded cars. There needs to be emphasis on pulling off the track safely and in a logical position where you have enough warning- like Perez did.

They also need to tighten up on flagging unsafe cars and penalising teams who don't bring in a damaged or unsafe car at the earliest opportunity. Leclerc a couple of times springs to mind.

Perez drove around with a failing engine, to the point where he let it catch fire and then left it in the middle of a run off area on fire. He should have driven it to the nearest fire marshalls post as soon as it was obvious it was going to fail.

[i70q7m7ghw]

What ever happened to the in-cockpit fire extinguisher? Do they still exist in F1? If so, why didn't it go off?

[aral]

A lot has been said already. I feel it’s very important to stress that the barrier is NOT designed for head-on contact and assessing it/trying to redesign it as if it should be better in that context is incorrect.

It is an adequate solution for its purpose.

clearly it is not adequate !. in a longitudinal aspect, the corrugations provide stiffness, but mountings do allow a cerrain amount of give as slotted fixing holes are provided. but corrugations have no strength when subjected to lateral loads, and that is where the problem was. and it certainly is not correct to say that it cannot be redesigned to make it safer. progress is continual

[smellybeard]

Road cars have had backup cameras for years, I don’t know why they can’t just use cameras for their mirrors and flash or an indicator onscreen or a beep in each ear to determine car on left or right, the fire is a tough one, idk if they have impact sensors that kill the fuel pump instantly, definitely wasn’t a full 100 kilos, definitely more than just a couple of kilos

Drivers have had brains since before cars were invented. Maybe they should engage those before loading more beeping junk into what is in actual fact a 200 mph projectile that will never be safe from fools.

[holeindalip]

Road cars have had backup cameras for years, I don’t know why they can’t just use cameras for their mirrors and flash or an indicator onscreen or a beep in each ear to determine car on left or right, the fire is a tough one, idk if they have impact sensors that kill the fuel pump instantly, definitely wasn’t a full 100 kilos, definitely more than just a couple of kilos

Drivers have had brains since before cars were invented. Maybe they should engage those before loading more beeping junk into what is in actual fact a 200 mph projectile that will never be safe from fools.

Lol, while I agree there are blind spots and why mirror mounting positions had to be mandated in 2018 still with blind spots hence my suggestions. No matter how good something is there’s always ways to be better...

[Just_a_fan]

A lot has been said already. I feel it’s very important to stress that the barrier is NOT designed for head-on contact and assessing it/trying to redesign it as if it should be better in that context is incorrect.

It is an adequate solution for its purpose.

clearly it is not adequate !. in a longitudinal aspect, the corrugations provide stiffness, but mountings do allow a cerrain amount of give as slotted fixing holes are provided. but corrugations have no strength when subjected to lateral loads, and that is where the problem was. and it certainly is not correct to say that it cannot be redesigned to make it safer. progress is continual

Rather than trying to redesign armco to work for single seaters travelling at 140mph (something it was never intended to deal with, frankly) why not just put the correct barrier in place?

[aral]

A lot has been said already. I feel it’s very important to stress that the barrier is NOT designed for head-on contact and assessing it/trying to redesign it as if it should be better in that context is incorrect.

It is an adequate solution for its purpose.

clearly it is not adequate !. in a longitudinal aspect, the corrugations provide stiffness, but mountings do allow a cerrain amount of give as slotted fixing holes are provided. but corrugations have no strength when subjected to lateral loads, and that is where the problem was. and it certainly is not correct to say that it cannot be redesigned to make it safer. progress is continual

Rather than trying to redesign armco to work for single seaters travelling at 140mph (something it was never intended to deal with, frankly) why not just put the correct barrier in place?

i am not denying that but only saying that where it is installed, it can be made safer. but the problem is that whatever is used as a barrier, there can be problems....sadly, nothing is perfect. however, armco has done a good job up until this incident

[El Scorchio]

These are my personal views...... first of all, it was a combination of car design and barrier design which created this unusual accident. it was noticable that the nose of the car went through the barrier at its weakest point...the horizontal "joint" between first and second tier of the armco. so, the nose is at a height where it can cause armco to fold up and down, something that armco is not designed to do. so really, if armco is to be used , it should be produced in 1 m deep panels which then has no weak point. but the accident shows that the strength of the nose cone is undisputed. secondly, when the front of the car came to its sudden halt, the residual lateral g force due to weight of pu, caused the 4/6 bolts joining the pu to the monocoque, to shear. whether it was the actual bolts that sheared, or failure of the carbon fibre monocoque, remains to be seen
as an interim measure, and if the armco is not replaced a further layer of armco should be affixed on the outside to cover the horizontal joint. that would prevent a similar car intrusion
of course, nobody can have a definitive answer until after the investigation, but those are jut my thoughts....right or wrong !

This is eaxctly my thought. A third strip of steel (or whetever it is) to sit on top of and between the two existing ones should make sure what happened with Grosjean's car can't happen again. This sort of arrangement (excuse the rudimentary look)

Current

}
[
}

New

}
[ }
}

I can't make the brackets actually overlap to demonstrate it, but I'm sure it's clear what I'm trying to do!

Are you looking to tie the strips of armco together vertically?
A floating post could do that. Like the other mounting posts linking the strips but not driven into the ground. That should allow the barrier to still stretch and absorb energy while minimising the potential for gaps to develop during an impact.

Nope- horizontally! And THB my diagram is pretty rotten. it would be adding a third horizontal strip over the gap between the two existing strips so they'd overlap. two at the back with one at the front sitting between them. Very simple but I'm finding it hard to explain well!

[smellybeard]

Nope- horizontally! And THB my diagram is pretty rotten. it would be adding a third horizontal strip over the gap between the two existing strips so they'd overlap. two at the back with one at the front sitting between them. Very simple but I'm finding it hard to explain well!

I don't understand that at all. Over the joint between left and right strips? - That's horizontal. Joining strips that are above and below each other is vertical. Joining all the strips so they form one broad barrier would stiffen up the barrier too much - too much steel per metre of barrier - it would never distort enough to absorb an impact safely. If you want that kind of barrier, you'd be better off with an indy-style wall.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I don't understand that at all. Over the joint between left and right strips? - That's horizontal. Joining strips that are above and below each other is vertical. Joining all the strips so they form one broad barrier would stiffen up the barrier too much - too much steel per metre of barrier - it would never distort enough to absorb an impact safely. If you want that kind of barrier, you'd be better off with an indy-style wall.

The steel barriers absolutely should not "distort", that's when they become dangerous. If armco is used on a track, it should never be "naked", there should always be a tyre wall in front of it to absorb the impact. Allowing the armco to distort is not a safe method to slow a race car, Robert Kubica will attest to that. A solid wall in some ways would be safer, it's far more predictable than twisting and tearing steel, and would allow the impact structures of an F1 car to work as designed.

[Jolle]

I don't understand that at all. Over the joint between left and right strips? - That's horizontal. Joining strips that are above and below each other is vertical. Joining all the strips so they form one broad barrier would stiffen up the barrier too much - too much steel per metre of barrier - it would never distort enough to absorb an impact safely. If you want that kind of barrier, you'd be better off with an indy-style wall.

The steel barriers absolutely should not "distort", that's when they become dangerous. If armco is used on a track, it should never be "naked", there should always be a tyre wall in front of it to absorb the impact, allowing the armco to distort is not a safe method to slow a race car, Robert Kubica will attest to that

Steel barriers are only good as a guide rail. When you hit them at a low angle, lets say 10degrees, the force you have then is only a small percentage of when you hit it at 90. In other words you bounce back and loose your speed on the track instead suddenly inside a tire wall.

This railing on this angle on the track was unnecessary. it should have been parallel with the track with the escape road going in instead of the part in front of it going out (if that makes any sense). F1 should look at Indy type of barriers for the fast straights where possible, where you can still bounce off when you hit it as a angle but are protected with a bit of play when you hit it head on.

[nzjrs]

I don't understand that at all. Over the joint between left and right strips? - That's horizontal. Joining strips that are above and below each other is vertical. Joining all the strips so they form one broad barrier would stiffen up the barrier too much - too much steel per metre of barrier - it would never distort enough to absorb an impact safely. If you want that kind of barrier, you'd be better off with an indy-style wall.

The steel barriers absolutely should not "distort", that's when they become dangerous. If armco is used on a track, it should never be "naked", there should always be a tyre wall in front of it to absorb the impact. Allowing the armco to distort is not a safe method to slow a race car, Robert Kubica will attest to that. A solid wall in some ways would be safer, it's far more predictable than twisting and tearing steel, and would allow the impact structures of an F1 car to work as designed.

Well a concrete wall is certainly a different design criteria to an absorbing metal barrier wall. Whether that is "as designed" for the impact structure is a matter of the impact velocity and impulse specifically, I guess....

It's also worth reading the Hubert crash report for the comments on the rebound considerations from a tire wall.

[smellybeard]

The steel barriers absolutely should not "distort", that's when they become dangerous.

Steel barriers absolutely should and must distort - that's the only way they can absorb energy in a collision. It's fundamental and if you don't like it, you should consider moving to a parallel universe. If you want a rigid, unyielding barrier, you need an indy-style ferroconcrete wall.