Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
7) I don't know what can prevent a Massa-like event, sans a windscreen. You can never protect against all eventualities though, no matter how many precautions you take.
The Halo helps a lot in that already, and the improved helmets also help. I don't really see much need right now, except indeed a windscreen could fix but you're really losing the soul of F1. also, if you implement a windscreen, grosjean could not have gotten out. so no, that's not an option.
I didn't think Grosjean went through the side of the Halo (between halo and car), didn't he go out the top but had to navigate the rail that was in the way? Would a helmet even clear that gap?
I think that whatever the barrier, it is the deflection angle that needs to be considered. Hitting parallel is going to be bad due to rapid deceleration, so if it is possible, it should be angled to deflect from parallel (like a castle wall is angled to deflect a cannon ball), but the car should not be 'bounced' back on t the track to collect other cars.
Although we would know the angle the car is passing down that section of road, it would not be possible to place barriers at angles to it unless the run off becomes unseasonably wide at the far end. The alternative would seem to be a barrier that collapses in a controlled manner.
I think I recall seeing barrier filled with water, where the impact is transferred to squishing water through small openings. This presumably would automatically create the angle by deflating?
This seems like the best option to me, but there are probably many problems with it that do not come readily to mind ( such as freezing etc)
Has anyone here had any real experience with these water filled barriers?
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
I think that whatever the barrier, it is the deflection angle that needs to be considered. Hitting parallel is going to be bad due to rapid deceleration, so if it is possible, it should be angled to deflect from parallel (like a castle wall is angled to deflect a cannon ball), but the car should not be 'bounced' back on t the track to collect other cars.
Although we would know the angle the car is passing down that section of road, it would not be possible to place barriers at angles to it unless the run off becomes unseasonably wide at the far end. The alternative would seem to be a barrier that collapses in a controlled manner. I think I recall seeing barrier filled with water, where the impact is transferred to squishing water through small openings. This seems like the best option to me, but there are probably many problems with it that do not come readily to mind ( such as freezing etc)
Has anyone here had any real experience with these water filled barriers?
Well I think the Grosjean crash is already an example of an impact at an uncommon impact angle, no? The extreme example is Indycar of course where the distribution of impact angles is a bunch of shallow impacts until someone catches a spin up into the bank at perpendicular!
I think angle of impact is actually a dangerously variable thing to put in a design brief.
I think that whatever the barrier, it is the deflection angle that needs to be considered. Hitting parallel is going to be bad due to rapid deceleration, so if it is possible, it should be angled to deflect from parallel (like a castle wall is angled to deflect a cannon ball), but the car should not be 'bounced' back on t the track to collect other cars.
Although we would know the angle the car is passing down that section of road, it would not be possible to place barriers at angles to it unless the run off becomes unseasonably wide at the far end. The alternative would seem to be a barrier that collapses in a controlled manner. I think I recall seeing barrier filled with water, where the impact is transferred to squishing water through small openings. This seems like the best option to me, but there are probably many problems with it that do not come readily to mind ( such as freezing etc)
Has anyone here had any real experience with these water filled barriers?
Well I think the Grosjean crash is already an example of an impact at an uncommon impact angle, no? The extreme example is Indycar of course where the distribution of impact angles is a bunch of shallow impacts until someone catches a spin up into the bank at perpendicular!
I think angle of impact is actually a dangerously variable thing to put in a design brief.
Thats why I thought of a 'water cushion' type. It would always be a 'V' shape into the mid section, whic would collapse and hold the car for fractions, until the water ran out.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
I think that whatever the barrier, it is the deflection angle that needs to be considered. Hitting parallel is going to be bad due to rapid deceleration, so if it is possible, it should be angled to deflect from parallel (like a castle wall is angled to deflect a cannon ball), but the car should not be 'bounced' back on t the track to collect other cars.
Although we would know the angle the car is passing down that section of road, it would not be possible to place barriers at angles to it unless the run off becomes unseasonably wide at the far end. The alternative would seem to be a barrier that collapses in a controlled manner.
I think I recall seeing barrier filled with water, where the impact is transferred to squishing water through small openings. This presumably would automatically create the angle by deflating?
This seems like the best option to me, but there are probably many problems with it that do not come readily to mind ( such as freezing etc)
Has anyone here had any real experience with these water filled barriers?
The problem is force and angles with the high speeds of a straight. A barrier which is safe for a sharp angle impact (like Grosjean did) will have to be so stiff that it can take the load of a 800kg car at 250 km/h and reduce that to zero within but not less than two meters. If a car hits at the same speed at an angle of only a few degrees, the force would be very small, but enough to have the car bounce back into the traffic. if you "grab" this car somehow, you won't be able to do this within the two meters and the car will either spin or grab the whatever you put up there that it will rotate in such a violent matter, that that will exceed maximum G. It's a difficult one and a potential no-win situation.
I think that whatever the barrier, it is the deflection angle that needs to be considered. Hitting parallel is going to be bad due to rapid deceleration, so if it is possible, it should be angled to deflect from parallel (like a castle wall is angled to deflect a cannon ball), but the car should not be 'bounced' back on t the track to collect other cars.
Although we would know the angle the car is passing down that section of road, it would not be possible to place barriers at angles to it unless the run off becomes unseasonably wide at the far end. The alternative would seem to be a barrier that collapses in a controlled manner.
I think I recall seeing barrier filled with water, where the impact is transferred to squishing water through small openings. This presumably would automatically create the angle by deflating?
This seems like the best option to me, but there are probably many problems with it that do not come readily to mind ( such as freezing etc)
Has anyone here had any real experience with these water filled barriers?
The problem is force and angles with the high speeds of a straight. A barrier which is safe for a sharp angle impact (like Grosjean did) will have to be so stiff that it can take the load of a 800kg car at 250 km/h and reduce that to zero within but not less than two meters. If a car hits at the same speed at an angle of only a few degrees, the force would be very small, but enough to have the car bounce back into the traffic. if you "grab" this car somehow, you won't be able to do this within the two meters and the car will either spin or grab the whatever you put up there that it will rotate in such a violent matter, that that will exceed maximum G. It's a difficult one and a potential no-win situation.
I realise this is dragging on a bit, but just being theoretical, pressure regulated vents. Is the 'hit' is soft, the air is allowed to vent and the 'bag' collapses, but if it is a hard strike, the volume and speed of venting provides more constriction and it deflates more slowly giving a harder cushion. ???
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
I realise this is dragging on a bit, but just being theoretical, pressure regulated vents. Is the 'hit' is soft, the air is allowed to vent and the 'bag' collapses, but if it is a hard strike, the volume and speed of venting provides more constriction and it deflates more slowly giving a harder cushion. ???
Gasses are compressible and if you don't let the gas escape fast enough, the energy will be stored in the compressed gas and the impact will be reflected with the stored energy intact. This is why we use pneumatic tires.
I think that whatever the barrier, it is the deflection angle that needs to be considered. Hitting parallel is going to be bad due to rapid deceleration, so if it is possible, it should be angled to deflect from parallel (like a castle wall is angled to deflect a cannon ball), but the car should not be 'bounced' back on t the track to collect other cars.
Although we would know the angle the car is passing down that section of road, it would not be possible to place barriers at angles to it unless the run off becomes unseasonably wide at the far end. The alternative would seem to be a barrier that collapses in a controlled manner.
I think I recall seeing barrier filled with water, where the impact is transferred to squishing water through small openings. This presumably would automatically create the angle by deflating?
This seems like the best option to me, but there are probably many problems with it that do not come readily to mind ( such as freezing etc)
Has anyone here had any real experience with these water filled barriers?
The problem is force and angles with the high speeds of a straight. A barrier which is safe for a sharp angle impact (like Grosjean did) will have to be so stiff that it can take the load of a 800kg car at 250 km/h and reduce that to zero within but not less than two meters. If a car hits at the same speed at an angle of only a few degrees, the force would be very small, but enough to have the car bounce back into the traffic. if you "grab" this car somehow, you won't be able to do this within the two meters and the car will either spin or grab the whatever you put up there that it will rotate in such a violent matter, that that will exceed maximum G. It's a difficult one and a potential no-win situation.
I realise this is dragging on a bit, but just being theoretical, pressure regulated vents. Is the 'hit' is soft, the air is allowed to vent and the 'bag' collapses, but if it is a hard strike, the volume and speed of venting provides more constriction and it deflates more slowly giving a harder cushion. ???
Any soft (as in not solid) hit at a shallow angle will grab and rotate a formula car. At speeds in excess of 250 km/h is deadly.
I realise this is dragging on a bit, but just being theoretical, pressure regulated vents. Is the 'hit' is soft, the air is allowed to vent and the 'bag' collapses, but if it is a hard strike, the volume and speed of venting provides more constriction and it deflates more slowly giving a harder cushion. ???
Gasses are compressible and if you don't let the gas escape fast enough, the energy will be stored in the compressed gas and the impact will be reflected with the stored energy intact. This is why we use pneumatic tires.
Yes, I used the wrong word as we were speaking of water-filled. I said 'air' my mistake.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
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.
Perhaps on public roads, but not on F1 tracks. Armco is not being used in F1 for it's energy absorbing qualities, the barriers are there to deflect/retain the cars, not absorb them... What's your answer for what happened last weekend? Was the barrier working as intended? What about the barrier Robert Kubica hit that bent in such a way he hit the next section head on, which then entered the car and severed his hand, was that working as intended? In both examples the distortion of the barrier was a direct contributor to a near fatal accident.
To be fair, why wasn't there a tyre barrier in front of the steel armco barrier? Even just a single pile in front would have done a lot to absorb energy and more likely prevent what happened in the end. two piles of tires in front would - i think - have done quite a lot. now i'm not advocating tires along the entire track, but in circumstances like how this barrier is placed and angled to the track, you'd improve safety by a huge margin by having a line of tires to tackle.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
7) I don't know what can prevent a Massa-like event, sans a windscreen. You can never protect against all eventualities though, no matter how many precautions you take.
The Halo helps a lot in that already, and the improved helmets also help. I don't really see much need right now, except indeed a windscreen could fix but you're really losing the soul of F1. also, if you implement a windscreen, grosjean could not have gotten out. so no, that's not an option.
I didn't think Grosjean went through the side of the Halo (between halo and car), didn't he go out the top but had to navigate the rail that was in the way? Would a helmet even clear that gap?
you're right, initially, from what i first saw i thought he went through the side but that's indeed impossible.
still, a windscreen would bring a bunch of other problems with it.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
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.
Depends which way you choose to describe it. I'd say you lay it horizontally over the existing horizontal barriers. Anyway. Semantics.
Depends which way you choose to describe it. I'd say you lay it horizontally over the existing horizontal barriers. Anyway. Semantics.
Well, the way I describe things with an up and down relationship is vertical and left and right is horizontal.
I think a fundamental misunderstand is more likely the problem than semantics.
